taussig - city of redlands · david taussig & associates, inc. public finance facilities...

DAVID

TAUSSIG& ASSOCIATES, INC.

Public FinanceFacilities PlanningUrban Economics

CITY OF REDLANDS

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEEJUSTIFICATION STUDY

January 9, 2017

Prepared forCITY OF REDLANDS

35 Cajon StreetRedlands, CA 92373

Prepared byDAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES, INC.5000 Birch Street, Suite 6000

Newport Beach, California 92660(800) 969-4382

Newport BeachSan Francisco

San JoseRiverside

DallasHouston

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1

II. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................4

III. DEMOGRAPHICS .......................................................................................................................... 9

IV. FEE CALCULATIONS .....................................................................................................................23

A. POLICE FEE............................................................................................................................. 23

B. FIRE FEE................................................................................................................................. 28

C. PARKS FEE ............................................................................................................................ 34

D. LIBRARY FEE.......................................................................................................................... 40

E. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES FEE ............................................................................ 45

F. TRANSPORTATION FEE .......................................................................................................... 51

V. IMPLEMENTATION........................................................................................................................63

APPENDIX

A. DEMOGRAPHICS SUMMARYB. FEE MODELS

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION

City of Redlands Page 1Development Impact Fee Justification Study January 9, 2017

The City of Redlands ("City"), a political subdivision of the State of California, authorizedDavid Taussig & Associates, Inc. to prepare a nexus study to justify proposed developmentimpact fees to be imposed on new development within the City limits. The fees to becollected will provide a source of revenue to fund public improvements that will mitigatethe impacts of such new development. This Fee Study will meet the requirements ofCalifornia Government Code Section 66001 known as the "Mitigation Fee Act" and willachieve the following goals related to said section:

Ensure the development impact fees do not exceed the estimated reasonablecost of providing the service for which the fee is imposed

Provide a clear and concise document that will serve as the basis for the proposedfee levels

A development impact fee is a one-time charge imposed by a local agency on newdevelopment to recover, or partially recover, the estimated reasonable cost ofproviding public facilities needed to mitigate the impacts of such new development. Furtherdiscussion on the legal limitations related to imposing development impact fees isdiscussed in Section II, "Legal Requirements."

This Fee Study and the resulting fee structure will focus on the justification for imposingimpact fees to fund, or partially fund, police, fire, library, park, general government, andtransportation facilities necessary to mitigate the impacts of new development.

This study uses a planning horizon of 2035 for all projections of demographic growth. Toensure the proposed fee structure meets the nexus requirements of Section 66001 andensure the fees are proportionate to the impacts generated by the various land uses,this Fee Study uses an equivalent development unit ("EDU") method to fairly allocate coststo new development and determine the appropriate fee levels that will provide a source offunds to pay for the proposed facilities. A more detailed discussion regarding the EDUmethodology can be found in Section III-3.

Application of the EDU methodology depends upon reasonable choices of variables thatadequately measure demand for respective facilities ("demand variable"). For instance,transportation impacts can be considered to be proportional to traffic volumes generatedon public streets. Therefore the demand variable is the standard trip generation ratesfor various land uses. Another example is that the demand for police facilities can bemeasured by the number of residents and employees requiring police protection servicesfrom the various land uses.



Table I-1 summarizes the demand variables used in this Fee Study:

TABLE I-1DEMAND VARIABLES

Facility Category Demand Variable

Police Population and Employees

Fire Population and Employees

Library Population

Parks Population

General Government Population and Employees

Transportation Average Daily Trips

Section IV of this Fee Study provides detailed analyses of facility needs (the “NeedsList”) for each fee category, allocation of costs to new development and calculation offee structures for police, fire, library, parks, general government, and transportationfacilities. Section IV also adds an administrative component of 2.0% of the individualfee amounts to pay for the City's overhead costs incurred in the administration of theFee program. Table I-2 summarizes the proposed Fee structure including theadministrative component:



TABLE I-2FEE SUMMARY

Residential (fee per unit) Non-Residential (fee per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) Fee perRoom

Land Use

Sing

le F

amily

Mul

ti-Fa

mily

Tran

sit O

rient

edD

evel

opm

ent

Reta

il

Com

mer

cial

Food

Ser

vice

and

Ente

rtain

men

t

Offic

e

War

ehou

sing

–St

anda

rd

War

ehou

sing

–Hi

ghCu

be

Man

ufac

turin

g an

dAs

sem

bly

Indu

stria

l/Ot

her

Inst

itutio

nal a

nd H

ealth

Care

Hote

l/M

otel

Police Facilities $30.11 $27.56 $18.66 $8.64 $3.65 $46.85 $37.40 $11.67 $1.97 $10.09 $9.54 $19.26 $8.71

Fire Facilities $577.08 $528.21 $357.74 $165.64 $69.89 $897.94 $716.94 $223.67 $37.69 $193.49 $182.88 $369.14 $167.04

Park Facilities $3,959.94 $3,624.62 $2,454.85 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Library Facilities $264.58 $242.18 $164.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

GovernmentFacilities $686.45 $628.33 $425.55 $197.03 $83.13 $1,068.13 $852.83 $266.06 $44.83 $230.16 $217.54 $439.10 $198.70

TransportationFacilities $1,512.36 $1,048.32 $1,074.63 $3,438.17 $3,331.11 $6,977.94 $2,007.94 $709.44 $262.62 $388.46 $1,271.14 $3,009.17 $1,049.11

Totals $7,030.52 $6,099.22 $4,495.45 $3,809.48 $3,487.78 $8,990.86 $3,615.11 $1,210.84 $347.11 $822.20 $1,681.10 $3,836.67 $1,423.56

SECTION II: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS


The City has identified the need to levy impact fees to pay for police, fire, library, parks, generalgovernment, and transportation facilities. These fees will finance facilities on the Needs Listsat levels identified by the City as appropriate for new development. Upon the adoption of theFee Study and required legal documents by the City Council, all new development will berequired to pay its “fair share” of the cost of facilities on the Needs Lists through these fees.

The fees are established pursuant to AB 1600 as described below.

AB 1600 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

Prior to World War II, development in California was held responsible for very little of the costof public infrastructure. Public improvements were financed primarily through jurisdictionalgeneral funds and utility charges. It was not uncommon during this period for speculators tosubdivide tracts of land without providing any public improvements, expecting the closest cityto eventually annex a project and provide public improvements and services.

However, starting in the late 1940s, the use of impact fees grew with the increased planningand regulation of new development. During the 1960s and 1970s, the California Courtsbroadened the right of local government to impose fees on developers for publicimprovements that were not located on project sites. More recently, with the passage ofProposition 13, the limits on general revenues for new infrastructure have resulted in newdevelopment being held responsible for a greater share of public improvements, and both theuse and levels of impact fees have grown substantially. Higher fee levels were undoubtedlydriven in part by a need to offset the decline in funds for infrastructure development fromother sources.

The levy of impact fees is one authorized method of financing the public facilities necessaryto mitigate the impacts of new development, as the levy of such fees provides funding tomaintain an agency's existing level of service for an increased service population. A fee is “amonetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment, which is charged by a local agencyto the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose ofdefraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project...”(California Government Code, Section 66000). A fee may be levied for each type of capitalimprovement required for new development, with the payment of the fee occurring prior tothe beginning of construction of a dwelling unit or non-residential building (or prior to theexpansion of existing buildings of these types). Fees are often levied at final map recordation,issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or more commonly, at building permit issuance. Actualfees will be collected as proscribed in the Redlands Municipal Code.

Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1600, which created Section 66000 et. seq. of the Government Code,was enacted by the State of California in 1987. This Fee Study is intended to meet the nexusor benefit requirements of AB 1600, which mandates that there is a nexus between feesimposed, the use of the fees, and the development projects on which the fees are imposed.

In 2006, Government Code Section 66001 was amended to clarify that a fee cannot includecosts attributable to existing deficiencies, but can fund costs used to maintain the existinglevel of service or meet an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.



Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code requires all public agencies to satisfy thefollowing requirements when establishing, increasing or imposing a fee as a condition of newdevelopment:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(1)).

2. Identify the use to which the fee will be put. (Government Code Section66001(a)(2)).

3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use andthe type of development on which the fee is to be imposed. (Government CodeSection 66001(a)(3)).

4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for thepublic facility and the type of development project on which the fee is to beimposed. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(4)).

5. Discuss how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the feeand the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable tothe development on which the fee is imposed.

The sections below present each of the five requirements listed above as they relate to theimposition of the proposed fees.

1. Purpose of the Fee (Government Code Section 66001(a)(1))

New residential and non-residential development within the City will generateadditional residents and employees who will require additional public facilities.Land for these facilities will have to be acquired and public facilities andequipment will have to be expanded, constructed or purchased to meet thisincreased demand.

This Fee Study has been prepared in response to the projected direct andcumulated effect of future development. Each new development willcontribute to the need for new public facilities. Without future developmentmany of the new public facilities on the Needs Lists would not be necessary asthe existing facilities are adequate for the City’s present population. Ininstances where facilities would be built regardless of new development, thecosts of such facilities have been allocated to new and existing developmentbased on their respective level of benefit.

The proposed impact fee will be charged to all future development, irrespectiveof location, in the City. Even future “in fill” development projects contribute toimpacts on public facilities because they are an interactive component of amuch greater universe of development located throughout the City. First, theproperty owners and/or the tenants associated with any new development in



the City can be expected to place additional demands on City facilities fundedby the fee. Second, these property owners and tenants are dependent on and,in fact, may not have chosen to utilize their development, except forresidential, retail, employment and recreational opportunities located nearbyon other existing and future development. Third, the availability of residents,employees, and customers throughout the City has a growth-inducing impactwithout which some of the “in-fill” development would not occur. As a result,all development projects in the City contribute to the cumulative impacts ofdevelopment.

The impact fees will be used for the acquisition, installation, and constructionof public facilities identified on the Needs Lists and appropriate administrativecosts to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of new development in theCity.

2. The Use to Which the Fee is to be Put (Government Code Section 66001(a)(2))

The fee will be used for the acquisition, installation, and construction of thepublic facilities identified on the Needs Lists, included in Section IV of the FeeStudy and other appropriate costs to mitigate the direct and cumulativeimpacts of new development in the City. The fee will provide a source ofrevenue to the City to allow for the acquisition, installation, and constructionof public facilities, which in turn will maintain the current standard of service,preserve the quality of life in City and protect the health, safety, and welfare ofthe existing and future residents, visitors, and employees.

3. Determine That There is a Reasonable Relationship Between the Fee’s Useand the Type of Development Project Upon Which the Fee is Imposed (BenefitRelationship) (Government Code Section 66001(a)(3))

It is the projected direct and cumulative effect of future development that hasprompted the preparation of the Fee Study. Each development will contributeto the need for new public facilities. Without future development, the Citywould have no need to construct many of the public facilities on the NeedsLists. For all other facilities, the costs have been allocated to both existing andnew development based on their level of benefit. Even future “in fill”development projects, which may be adjacent to existing facilities, furtherburden existing public facilities. Consequently, all new development within theCity, irrespective of location, contributes to the direct and cumulative impactsof development on public facilities and creates the need for new facilities toaccommodate growth.

The fees will be expended for the acquisition, installation, and construction ofthe public facilities identified on the Needs Lists and other authorized uses, asthat is the purpose for which the Fee is collected. As previously stated, all newdevelopment creates either a direct impact on public facilities or contributesto the cumulative impact on public facilities. Moreover, this impact is generally



equalized among all types of development because it is the increaseddemands for public facilities created by the future residents and employeesthat create the impact upon existing facilities.

For the foregoing reasons, new development benefits from the acquisition,construction, and installation of the facilities on the Needs Lists.

4. Determine How There is a Reasonable Relationship Between the Need for thePublic Facility and the Type of Development Project Upon Which the Fee isImposed (Impact Relationship) (Government Code Section 66001(a)(4))

As previously stated, all new development within the City, irrespective oflocation, contributes to the direct and cumulative impacts of development onpublic facilities and creates the need for new facilities to accommodategrowth. Without future development, many of the facilities on the Needs Listswould not be necessary. For certain other facilities, the costs have beenallocated to both existing and new development based on their level of benefit.

For the reasons presented herein, there is a reasonable relationship betweenthe need for the public facilities included on the Needs List and all newdevelopment within the City.

5. The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the PublicFacilities Attributable to the Development Upon Which the Fee is Imposed(“Rough Proportionality” Relationship) (Government Code 66001(a)

As set forth above, all new development in the City impacts public facilities.Moreover, each individual development project and its related increase inpopulation and/or employment, along with the cumulative impacts of alldevelopment in the City, will adversely impact existing facilities. Thus,imposition of the Fee to finance the facilities on the Needs Lists is an efficient,practical, and equitable method of permitting development to proceed in aresponsible manner.

New development impacts facilities directly and cumulatively. In fact, withoutany future development, the acquisition, construction, and/or installation ofmany of the facilities on the Needs Lists would not be necessary as existingCity facilities are adequate. Even new development located adjacent toexisting facilities will utilize and benefit from facilities on the Needs List.

The proposed fee amounts are roughly proportional to the impacts resultingfrom new development based on the analysis in Section IV. Thus there is areasonable relationship between the amount of the Fee and the cost of thefacilities.

Identifying these items will enable an impact fee to meet the nexus and roughproportionality requirements established by previous court cases. These



findings are discussed in the nexus test for each proposed fee element aspresented in Section IV.A through Section IV.F. Current State financing and feeassessment requirements only allow new development to pay for its fair shareof new facilities’ costs. Any current deficiencies resulting from the needs ofexisting development must be funded through other sources. Therefore, a keyelement to establish legal impact fees is to determine what share of the benefitor cost of a particular improvement can be equitably assigned to existingdevelopment, even if that improvement has not yet been constructed. Byremoving this factor, the true impact of new development can be assessed andequitable fees assigned.

SECTION III: DEMOGRAPHICS


In order to determine the public facilities needed to serve new development as well asestablish fee amounts to fund such facilities, the City provided DTA with projections of futurepopulation, employees and development within the City. For purposes of projecting futurepopulation and employment growth, the City categorizes developable land uses as residentialproperty and non-residential property. Residential and non-residential property is furthercategorized into subclasses as shown in Table III-1. Based on these designations, DTAestablished fees for these land use categories to acknowledge the difference in impactsresulting from various land uses and to make the resulting fee program implementable. Asummary of the land use classes utilized in this fee study are included in Table III-1. However,not all fees will apply to all land uses.

Table III-1

LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONFOR FEE STUDY DEFINITION

Single Family ResidentialIncludes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following:

Single family detached homes Single family attached homes

Multi-Family Residential

Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following: Buildings with attached residential units including

apartments, town homes, condominiums, except for unitswithin a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)

A 2nd residential unit on property zoned and entitled forsingle family residential use unless collection of DIF isprohibited by California law

Transit-Oriented Development

Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following: Multi-family residential units located within Transit-Oriented

Development (TOD) zones identified in the City General Planand conforming to TOD development requirements.

Note: Retail and Commercial development within TOD zoneswill be assessed at the standard DIF rates for Retail andCommercial

Retail

Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following: Department stores, discount stores, furniture/appliance

outlets, home improvement centers Neighborhood shopping center Subregional and regional shopping centers

Commercial

Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following: Automobile sales and services Entertainment and cultural facilities Business Parks Service-oriented business activities unless specifically listed

elsewhere




Food Service and Entertainment

Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following: Theatres Full service restaurants Fast Food restaurants Coffee shops and all other limited food/beverage businesses Bars and tasting rooms Bowling alleys, etc.

Office

Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following: Business/professional office Professional medical offices not located on the same

property/development as a hospital Service oriented business activities where the focus in on

customer service delivery in an office environment.

Hotel/Motel

Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following: Short term and intermediate term housing with room rental

businesses defined as hotel or motel in the RedlandsMunicipal Code

Warehousing - Standard

Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following: Warehouse facilities, or portions of other buildings, used for

storage and distribution of materials not qualifying as HighCube warehousing

Warehousing – High Cube

Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following: >200,000 SF warehouse over 24 feet high used for storage

and consolidation of manufactured goods prior to distributionto other warehouse facilities utilitizing a high level of on-siteautomation and logistics management

Manufacturing and Assembly Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following: Facilities used for manufacturing and assembly of products

Industrial - Other

Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following: Rock, Sand, and Gravel Production Storage Facilities Redlands Municipal Airport Parking lots Utility Facilities




Public/Institutional and Health Care

Includes, but is not limited to, buildings used as the following: Public schools and educational facilities Private schools Universities Community Centers Post offices Religious buildings Hospitals

The time horizon used for all fees is through the year 2035. The City was able to utilizeavailable data from the City’s General Plan (the “General Plan”) to generate existing and futuredevelopment projections through 2035.

The following sections summarize the existing and future development figures used incalculating the impact fees.

Section 1 below summarizes the existing development in the City.

Section 2 below summarizes the future development in the City through the year 2035.

Section 3 below summarizes the total development in the City in the year 2035.

Lastly, Section 4 below summarizes the EDU methodology used in all fee calculations.



1. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN CITY

A. Residential Development

The City estimates there were 69,882 residents residing in 26,953 residential unitswithin the City as of January 1, 2015.

Table III-2 summarizes the existing residential development within the City.

TABLE III-2CITY OF REDLANDS

ESTIMATED EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Residential Property Existing Number ofResidents (2015)

Existing Number ofResidential Units (2015)

Single-Family 50,315 19,547

Multi-Family 19,567 7,406

Transit-Oriented Development 0 0

Total 69,882 26,953



B. Non-Residential Development

In terms of non-residential development, the City has estimated there areapproximately 268 Hotel/Motel rooms and 28.9 million square feet of other non-residential development within the City as of January 1, 2015. The number of existingHotel/Motel rooms was estimated by DTA based on the existing 270,918 buildingsquare feet as provided by the City and a factor of 1,012 building square feet per hotelroom.

In terms of employees, there are 30,546 existing employees within the City.

Table III-3 summarizes the existing non-residential development within the City.


ESTIMATED EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Non-Residential Property Number ofEmployees

Number of Non-Residential SF

Number ofRooms

Retail 3,038 3,280,718 NA

Commercial 1,290 3,301,780 NA

Food Service & Entertainment 2,203 438,842 NA

Office 6,993 1,744,700 NA

Warehousing- Standard 445 355,878 NA

Warehousing-High Cube 2,527 11,993,284 NA

Manufacturing & Assembly 2,342 2,165,052 NA

Industrial- Other 331 323,748 NA

Institutional & Health Care 11,127 5,391,797 NA

Hotel/Motel 250 NA 268

Total 30,546 28,995,799 268



2. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN CITY (2015 – 2035)

As discussed in the introduction above, the time horizon used for all fees is throughthe year 2035. Therefore, this section describes development through 2035. Thesefee calculations rely on the development information provided by the City related topopulation, residential dwelling units, employees, non-residential building square feet,and hotel/motel rooms as described below.

A. Residential Development

The City estimates there will be 105,676 residents and residing in 41,171 residentialunits within the City in the year 2035. Therefore, the City will have a populationincrease of 35,794 new residents and growth in residential development of 14,218new dwelling units from 2015 through 2035.

Table III-4 summarizes the future demographics for residential property through theyear 2035.


ESTIMATED FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT(2015 THROUGH YEAR 2035)

Residential Property Future Number ofResidents (2015 - 2035)

Future Number of ResidentialUnits (2015 - 2035)

Single-Family 15,089 4,677

Multi-Family 5,029 1,703

Transit-Oriented Development 15,676 7,838

Total 35,794 14,218



B. Non-Residential Development

In terms of non-residential development, it is estimated there will be approximately132 new Hotel/Motel rooms and 14.2 million new square feet of other non-residentialdevelopment within the City from 2015 to 2035. The number of new Hotel/Motelrooms was estimated by DTA based on 133,292 future building square feet asprovided by the City and a factor of 1,012 building square feet per hotel room asmentioned above.

In terms of employees, it is estimated there will be 14,838 additional employees withinthe City through 2035.

Table III-5 summarizes the future demographics for the non-residential land usesthrough the year 2035.


ESTIMATED FUTURE NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT(2015 THROUGH 2035)


Number of Non-Residential SF Number of Rooms

Retail 1,494 1,613,362 NA

Commercial 634 1,622,735 NA

Food Service & Entertainment 1,083 215,736 NA

Office 3,439 858,004 NA

Warehousing- Standard 65 52,001 NA

Warehousing-High Cube 1,284 6,093,809 NA

Manufacturing & Assembly 1,206 1,114,568 NA

Industrial- Other 37 36,256 NA

Institutional & Health Care 5,473 2,652,045 NA

Hotel/Motel 123 NA 132

Total 14,838 14,258,516 132



3. TOTAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN CITY (2035)

Table III-6 describes the total residential development in the City in the year 2035. This isbased on the sum of Tables III-2 and III-4.


ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT(IN YEAR 2035)

Residential Property DescriptionTotal Existing

(2015)(From Table III-2)

FutureDevelopment

(2015 to 2035)(From Table III-4)

TotalDevelopment

(2035)

Single-FamilyResidents 50,315 15,089 65,404

Units 19,547 4,677 24,224

Multi-FamilyResidents 19,567 5,029 24,596

Units 7,406 1,703 9,109

Transit-OrientedDevelopment

Residents 0 15,676 15,676

Units 0 7,838 7,838

TotalResidents 69,882 35,794 105,676

Units 26,953 14,218 41,171



Table III-7 describes the total non-residential development in the City in the year 2035. Thisis based on the sum of Tables III-3 and III-5.


ESTIMATED NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT(IN YEAR 2035)

Residential Property DescriptionTotal Existing

(2015)(From Table III-3)

Future Development(2015 to 2035)

(From Table III-5)

TotalDevelopment

(2035)

RetailEmployees 3,038 1,494 4,532

Non-Res. SF 3,280,718 1,613,362 4,894,080

CommercialEmployees 1,290 634 1,924

Non-Res. SF 3,301,780 1,622,735 4,924,515

Food Service &Entertainment

Employees 2,203 1,083 3,286

Non-Res. SF 438,842 215,736 654,578

OfficeEmployees 6,993 3,439 10,432

Non-Res. SF 1,744,700 858,004 2,602,704

Warehousing –Standard

Employees 445 65 510

Non-Res. SF 335,878 52,001 407,879

Warehousing – HighCube

Employees 2,527 1,284 3,811

Non-Res. SF 11,993,284 6,093,809 18,087,093

Manufacturing &Assembly

Employees 2,342 1,206 3,548

Non-Res. SF 2,165,052 1,114,568 3,279,620

Industrial - OtherEmployees 331 37 368

Non-Res. SF 323,748 36,256 360,004

Institutional & HealthCare

Employees 11,127 5,473 16,600

Non-Res. SF 5,391,797 2,652,045 8,043,842

Hotel/MotelEmployees 250 123 373

Rooms 268 132 399

Total

Employees 30,546 14,838 45,384

Non-Res. SF 28,995,799 14,258,516 43,254,315

Hotel Rooms 268 132 399



4. EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT (EDU) PROJECTIONS

California Government Code §66001(4)(b) requires there to be a "...reasonablerelationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility, or portionof the public facility, attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed." Toensure a reasonable relationship is maintained within the proposed fee structure, thisstudy uses an Equivalent Dwelling Unit ("EDU") methodology. This approachestablishes, for given land uses, a method of comparison of that land use to a baselineland use, utilizing a common demand variable. A demand variable is a measurablefactor directly related to the size of the public facility.

As stated earlier, fees are calculated for various land use categories. Each land usehas different levels of demand for the new facilities depending upon the demandvariable most closely related to the determination of the size, extent and cost of thefacility in question. For instance, additional traffic generated by new developmentrequires expansion of existing roadway systems, therefore vehicular trips generated bygrowth in the various land uses would be a reasonable variable to measure trafficdemand. In this case the Average Daily Trips ("ADT") would be the common demandvariable and the ADTs generated by a residential dwelling unit would be the baselinevalue to which the ADTs generated by the remaining land uses would be compared.Likewise, additional residents resulting from new residential development willgenerate demand for expanded library facilities in the existing library system, thereforepopulation increase would be considered a reasonable common demand variable andthe population growth from a new residence would be used as the baseline.



Table III-8 shows the fee category, service factor, and applicable land uses for whichthe EDUs are calculated.

TABLE III-8City of Redlands

Equivalent Dwelling Units

Facility Type Service Factor Fee charged to Land Uses

Police Residents and Employees Served Res. and Non-Res.

Fire Residents and Employees Served Res. and Non-Res.

Parks Residents Served Res. Only

Library Residents Served Res. Only

Government Facilities Residents and Employees Served Res. and Non-Res.

Transportation Average Daily Trips Res. and Non-Res.



Table III-9 shows the existing EDUs for each land use. The following data is used for the police,fire, parks, library, and government facilities fees. The EDUs for transportation, which arebased on average daily trips, are described in Section IV.E.


Existing Equivalent Dwelling Units(From 2015 to 2035)

Residential Property Number of ExistingResidents

Number ofResidential

Units

EDUs perResidential Unit

Total ExistingEDUs

Single Family 50,315 19,547 1.000 19,547Multi-Family 19,567 7,406 1.026 7,602Transient Oriented Development 0 0 N/A N/A

Subtotal 69,882 26,953 27,149

Non-Residential Property Number of ExistingEmployees

Number of Non-Residential SF /

Rooms

EDUs per 1,000Non-Res. SF /

Room

Total ExistingEDUs

Retail 3,038 3,280,718 0.360 1,180Commercial 1,290 3,301,780 0.152 501Food Service & Entertainment 2,203 438,842 1.950 856Office 6,993 1,744,700 1.557 2,717Warehousing – Standard 445 355,878 0.486 173Warehousing – High Cube 2,527 11,993,284 0.082 982Manufacturing and Assembly 2,342 2,165,052 0.420 910Industrial – Other 331 323,748 0.397 129Institutional & Health Care 11,127 5,391,797 0.802 4,323Hotel/Motel Rooms 250 268 0.363 97

Subtotal 30,546 28,995,799 11,867

Grand Total 39,016



Table III-10 shows the total number of future EDUs calculated for each land use for the timeperiod from 2015 through 2035. Please note that the future EDU factors differ from theexisting EDU factors due to various reasons including estimated changes in residents per unitand employees per square foot as provided by the City. The City estimated such futurechanges based on current census data statistics, housing density within the City, planningprojections, and employee levels of current business in the City.


Future Equivalent Dwelling Units(From 2015 to 2035)

Residential Property Number of FutureResidents


Units

EDUs perResidential Unit

Total FutureEDUs

Single Family 15,089 4,677 1.000 4,677Multi-Family 5,029 1,703 0.915 1,559Transient Oriented Development 15,676 7,838 0.620 4,859

Subtotal 35,794 14,218 11,095

Non-Residential Property Number of FutureEmployees


Rooms

EDUs per 1,000Non-Res. SF /

Room

Total FutureEDUs

Retail 1,494 1,613,362 0.287 463Commercial 634 1,622,735 0.121 197Food Service & Entertainment 1,083 215,736 1.556 336Office 3,439 858,004 1.242 1,066Warehousing – Standard 65 52,001 0.388 20Warehousing – High Cube 1,284 6,093,809 0.065 398Manufacturing and Assembly 1,206 1,114,568 0.335 374Industrial – Other 37 36,256 0.317 11Institutional & Health Care 5,473 2,652,045 0.640 1,696Hotel/Motel Rooms 123 132 0.289 38

Subtotal 14,838 14,258,648 4,599

Grand Total 15,694



Table III-11 shows the total number of EDUs calculated for each land use in the year 2035:


Equivalent Dwelling Units(In 2035)

Residential Property Number ofResidents


UnitsTotal EDUs

Single Family 65,404 24,224 24,224Multi-Family 24,596 9,109 9,160Transient Oriented Development 15,676 7,838 4,859

Subtotal 105,676 41,171 38,243



RoomsTotal EDUs

Retail 4,532 4,894,080 1,643Commercial 1,924 4,924,515 698Food Service & Entertainment 3,286 654,578 1,192Office 10,432 2,602,704 3,783Warehousing – Standard 510 407,879 193Warehousing – High Cube 3,811 18,087,093 1,380Manufacturing and Assembly 3,548 3,279,620 1,284Industrial – Other 368 360,004 140Institutional & Health Care 16,600 8,043,842 6,019Hotel/Motel Rooms 373 399 Rooms 135

Subtotal 45,384 43,254,315 16,466

Grand Total 54,709

SECTION IV: FEE CALCULATIONS -POLICE FEE


The following sections present the reasonable relationship for benefit, impact, and roughproportionality tests for each fee element (i.e., police facilities, fire facilities, library facilities,etc.) and the analysis undertaken to apportion costs for each type of public facility on theNeeds List. More detailed fee calculation worksheets for each type of facility are included inAppendix B.

A. POLICE FACILITIES

The Police Facilities will serve the residents and employees of Redlands by providing lawenforcement and public safety services. The Fee Study includes a component for newpolice vehicles/aircraft. Table IV-A1 illustrates how the police fee will meet therequirements of AB1600 with regard to use of the fee, the type of development fundedor partially funded by the fee revenue, the reasonable relationship to the need forfacilities, and the proportionality requirements.

TABLE IV-A1POLICE FACILITIES

AB1600 CodeSection Description Justification

66001(a)(1) Identify the purpose ofthe Fee

Provide a revenue source that will provide funds toacquire vehicles/aircraft that will mitigate theimpacts of new residential and non-residentialdevelopment to the City’s Police facilities.

66001(a)(2)Identify the use to

which the fee is to beput

Acquisition of vehicles/aircraft.

66001(a)(3)

Demonstrate how thereis a reasonable

relationship betweenthe fee’s use and thetype of development

project on which the feeis imposed

New residential and non-residential development inthe City will generate additional residents andemployees increasing the need for trained policepersonnel. Vehicles used to provide these serviceswill have to be purchased to meet this increaseddemand.

66001(a)(4)


relationship betweenthe need for the public

facilities and the type ofdevelopment project on

which the fee isimposed

The additional residents and employees from newdevelopment will impact demand for policevehicles/aircraft. New police vehicles/aircraft areneeded to mitigate the impacts of the additionalresidents and employees. If additional policevehicles/aircraft are not acquired, then overallpublic safety in the City will suffer.




66001(b)


relationship betweenthe amount of the fee

and the cost of thepublic facility

The police fee is based on the cost to provide newvehicles/aircraft.

EXISTING FACILITIES

The City of Redlands currently has 135 vehicles/aircraft. See Table IV-A2 for a summaryof the existing inventory.

TABLE IV-A2EXISTING POLICE FACILITIES

Police Facilities Facility Unit Units

Vehicles/AircraftMarked Police Units Vehicles 48Unmarked Police Vehicles Vehicles 7Off-Road Vehicles Vehicles 5Unmarked Units Vehicles 25Undercover/Cold Units Vehicles 9Crime Scene/Evidence Vehicles Vehicles 2Evidence/Building Maintenance Vehicles 2CSO/PDG Control/CVP/Explorer/CVP Vehicles Vehicles 15Custody/Transport Vehicles 2Animal Control Trucks Vehicles 3Mobile Command Center Vehicles 1Cessna 172 Airplane Aircraft 1DUI Trailer (2-axle) Vehicles 2DUI Trailer (3-axle) Vehicles 1Radar Trailers Vehicles 2VMS Trailer Vehicles 1Segways Vehicles 7Park Ranger Golf Cart Vehicles 1MRAP Vehicles 1

Total 135

In addition, the City currently has one police facility totaling 23,838 building square feeton 1.46 acres of land. As described in Section IV.E herein (Government Facilities), thisexisting police facility will be replaced in the future with the proposed Government



Center/Safety Hall Facility.

PROPOSED FACILITIES

In order to determine the proposed facilities, the City must determine the demand uponinfrastructure created by new development. Residents and businesses benefit from lawenforcement services in three ways: (i) directly, (ii) indirectly, and (iii) through standbyavailability. Direct services are those where a resident or business owner requires adirect response, usually as a result of being the victim of a crime. Direct service resultsin the form of a law enforcement officer contacting the victim. Indirect benefits, such ascrime prevention programs, free patrol time and other law enforcement services thatserve all business, citizens, and visitors, are impossible to calculate for a specificboundary. An example of indirect benefit would be the apprehension of a burglar in aparticular neighborhood. Had the burglar not been apprehended and arrested, he/shemay have broken into additional homes in the neighborhood. Most residents andbusinesses may go for many years before ever requiring a call-for-service. However,these fortunate residents and businesses still benefit from law enforcement services, ifin no other way than by the knowledge that a law enforcement officer is available,through adequate planned standby to respond when needed.

The addition of new residential units and new business will increase the demand uponenforcement service level, more areas requiring preventative patrol, and in general, willcreate more opportunities for crimes to be committed. Demands will be made upon thepreviously listed assets in Table IV-A2 above in a direct, indirect, or standby form.Therefore, such assets would need to be expanded.

Table IV-A3 identifies the vehicles/aircraft proposed to be funded in whole or in part withthe collection of Police fees. Quantity and costs are based on estimates provided by theCity.

TABLE IV-A3NEEDS LIST

Police Facilities Facility Unit Number Facility Cost

Future Police Vehicles/Aircraft Vehicles/Aircraft Costs

Marked Police Units Vehicles 12 $327,191

Unmarked Units Vehicles 3 $69,042Undercover/Cold Units Vehicles 1 $25,000Radar Trailers Vehicles 2 $26,000Park Ranger Golf Cart Vehicles 2 $16,000

Total 20 $463,233

Grand Total $463,233

In addition, a new law enforcement facility (Safety Hall) is included in Section IV.E



herein (General Government Facilities). Therefore, the fee related to new lawenforcement facilities space will be collected as part of the General GovernmentFacilities fee while the Police fee will be for the acquisition of police vehicles/aircraftonly.


For police facilities, the development of property into residential and non-residentialuses generates residents and employees increasing the need for trained policepersonnel. Vehicles and aircraft used to provide police services will have to bepurchased to meet this increased demand.

Since the facilities proposed to be financed by the impact fees will serve bothresidential and non-residential property, DTA projected the number of future EDUsbased on the number of residents or employees generated by each land use class.

As shown in Section III.4 (Demographics - EDUs), there are 39,016 total existing EDUsand 15,694 future EDUs, bringing the total EDUs in 2035 to 54,709 EDUs.

Allocation of Costs

The total cost of $463,233, as shown in Table IV-A4 above, for police facilities neededto serve existing and new development is allocated to existing and new developmentbased on the share of total EDUs in 2035.

Vehicles/Aircraft

The City currently has 135 existing vehicles/aircraft. The City has determined thevehicles/aircraft identified on Table IV-A3 will be needed to serve new development.Since the existing vehicles of 3.460 vehicles per 1,000 EDUs (135 vehicles divided by39,016 EDUs) is greater than the buildout vehicles of 2.833 per 1,000 EDUs (155vehicles divided by 54,709 EDUs), 100% of the costs will be allocated to newdevelopment.

Total Facilities Costs

See Table IV-A5 for the total facilities costs allocated to new and existing development.

TABLE IV-A5TOTAL COSTS

New Facility Cost Allocated toExisting Development

Cost Allocated toFuture Development Total Costs

Vehicles/Aircraft $0 $463,233 $463,233

Total $0 $463,233 $463,233



Proposed Fee Amount

The Fee per EDU was calculated by dividing the costs allocated to future developmentby the number of future EDUs. See Table IV-A6 for the fee amount for each land use.

TABLE IV-A6PROPOSED FEES

Land Use TypeNumber of Future

Units/Rooms/1,000Sq. Ft.

Development Impact Feeper Unit/Room/1,000

Sq. Ft.

Cost Financedby Fees

Residential PropertySingle Family 4,677 $29.52 $138,050Multi-Family 1,703 $27.02 $46,011Transient Oriented Development 7,838 $18.30 $143,421

Non-Residential Property

Retail 1,613 $8.47 $13,669Commercial 1,623 $3.57 $5,801Food Service & Entertainment 216 $45.93 $9,908Office 858 $36.67 $31,464Warehousing – Standard 52 $11.44 $595Warehousing – High Cube 6,094 $1.93 $11,747Manufacturing and Assembly 1,115 $9.90 $11,031Industrial – Other 36 $9.35 $339Institutional & Health Care 2,652 $18.88 $50,073Hotel/Motel 132 $8.54 $1,125

Total $463,233Cost Allocated to Existing Development $0

Total Cost of Police Facilities $463,233

Based on the development projections in Section III and Appendix A, the fee amountpresented in Table IV-A6 above are expected to finance 100% of the facilities needed.

SECTION IV: FEE CALCULATIONS -FIRE FEE


B. FIRE FACILITIES

The Fire Facilities will serve the residents and employees of Redlands by providing fireprotection services. The Fee Study includes a component for new fire facilities,equipment, and vehicles. Table IV-B1 illustrates how the fire fee will meet therequirements of AB1600 with regard to use of the fee, the type of development fundedor partially funded by the fee revenue, the reasonable relationship to the need forfacilities, and the proportionality requirements.

TABLE IV-B1FIRE FACILITIES



Provide a revenue source that will provide funds toconstruct various Fire facilities, and acquireequipment and vehicles that will mitigate theimpacts of new residential and non-residentialdevelopment to the City’s Fire facilities.

66001(a)(2) Identify the use to whichthe fee is to be put

Expansion/construction/acquisition of Fire facilities,equipment, and vehicles.

66001(a)(3)


relationship betweenthe fee’s use and thetype of development

project on which the feeis imposed

New residential and non-residential development inthe City will generate additional residents andemployees increasing the need for trained Firepersonnel. Buildings, equipment, and vehicles usedto provide these services will have to be expanded,constructed or purchased to meet this increaseddemand.

66001(a)(4)




which the fee isimposed

The additional residents and employees from newdevelopment will impact demand for fire facilities.New Fire facilities are needed to mitigate theimpacts of the additional residents and employees.If additional Fire facilities are not constructed andequipment and vehicles are not acquired, thenoverall public safety in the City will suffer.

66001(b)




The Fire fee is based on the cost to provide newfacilities, equipment, and vehicles.

EXISTING FACILITIESThe City of Redlands currently has four fire stations totaling 23,456 building square feetand 27 fire vehicles. See Table IV-B2 for a summary of the existing inventory.



TABLE IV-B2EXISTING FIRE FACILITIES

Fire Facilities Facility Unit Units

Fire Facility Building Size

Fire Station 261 SF 14,256Fire Station 262 SF 3,600Fire Station 263 SF 5,600Fire Station 264 Temporary Temporary

Total Fire Stations 23,456

Fire Vehicles & EquipmentType 1 Engine E-261 Vehicles 1Type 1 Engine E-262 Vehicles 1Type 1 Engine E-263 Vehicles 1Type 1 Engine E-264 Vehicles 1Aerial Ladder T-261 Vehicles 1Type 3 Engine BE-261 Vehicles 1Type 3 Engine BE-262 Vehicles 1Type 3 Engine BE-264 Vehicles 1Water Tender WT-263 Vehicles 1Squad MS-261 Vehicles 1Squad MS-261R Vehicles 1Command C-700 Vehicles 1Command BC-704 Vehicles 1Command BC-705 Vehicles 1Command BC-706 Vehicles 1Command BC-707 Vehicles 1

Total 16

Support Staff Vehicles & EquipmentStaff Vehicle P-751 Vehicles 1Staff Vehicle 903 Vehicles 1Utility Vehicle UT-261 Vehicles 1Incident Suppt IS-263 Vehicles 1Safety Trailer 951 Vehicles 1Rescue Trailer 952 Vehicles 1Lt Support Trailer 953 Vehicles 1Repair Vehicle 925 Vehicles 1

Total 8

Secondary Units

Type 1 Engine E-261R Vehicles 1Type 1 Engine E-263R Vehicles 1Ariel Ladder T-261R Vehicles 1

Total 3



PROPOSED FACILITIES

In order to determine the proposed facilities, the City must determine the demand uponinfrastructure created by new development. It is clear all new development in the Citywill impact the City’s current ability to respond to fire, rescue, and medical calls-for-service. The effect is twofold. Initially, each new residence and business will create, onaverage, additional calls-for-service increasing the likelihood of simultaneous (and thuscompeting) calls-for-service. Additionally, as development spreads further from existingstations, the distances (and thus response times) will increase, taking the existingengine companies out-of-service for greater periods of time.

The capacity of any fire station is finite and will reach practical limits (through callfrequency and total incident time). When capacity is exceeded, the level of serviceafforded to existing development will be reduced. In other words, if developmentcontinues without an increase in the number of fire stations, the existing stations wouldbe overwhelmed in terms of calls-for-service, increasing the possibility of a greaternumber of simultaneous calls-for-service. Additional demands will be made upon thepreviously listed asset in Table IV-B2 above and therefore, such assets would need to beexpanded.

Table IV-B3 identifies the facilities, equipment, and vehicles proposed to be funded inwhole or in part with the collection of Fire fees. Quantity and costs are based onestimates provided by the City.

TABLE IV-B3NEEDS LIST

Fire Facilities FacilityUnit Number Facility Cost

(2013)Facility Cost

(2016)Future Fire Facilities Building Size Costs Costs

Fire Admin Space SF 7,000 $3,318,000 $3,591,817Fire Station 264 Replacement SF 8,500 $3,535,980 $3,827,786NE Fire Station SF 8,500 $3,535,980 $3,827,786NW Fire Station SF 8,500 $3,535,980 $3,827,786

Total 32,500 $13,925,940 $15,075,175

Future Support Staff Vehicles Vehicles Costs Costs

Staff Vehicle P-752 Vehicles 1 $18,000 $19,485Staff Vehicle Staff Cpt. Vehicles 1 $18,750 $20,297Staff Vehicle - Arson Vehicles 1 $19,500 $21,109

Total 3 $56,250 $60,892

Future Secondary UnitsType 1 Engine (2) Vehicles 1 $1,268,000 $1,372,641

Grand Total $15,250,190 $16,508,708




For Fire facilities, the development of property into residential and non-residential usesgenerates residents and employees increasing the need for trained fire personnel.Buildings, equipment, and vehicles used to provide fire protection services will have tobe expanded, constructed or purchased to meet this increased demand.


As shown in Section III.4 (Demographics - EDUs), there are 39,016 total existing EDUsand 15,694 future EDUs, bringing the total EDUs in 2035 to 54,709 EDUs.

Allocation of Costs

The total cost of $16,508,708, as shown in Table IV-B3 above, for fire facilities neededto serve existing and new development is allocated to existing and new developmentbased on the share of total EDUs in 2035.

Fire Stations

Table IV-B4 summarizes the allocation of fire station costs to existing and newdevelopment. The City currently has 23,456 square feet of existing fire stationbuildings. Based on the locations of existing and new development, additional firefacilities will be needed at various locations. The City has determined 32,500 newbuilding square feet are needed to adequately serve both existing and newdevelopment, bringing the total to 55,956 square feet. Therefore, after providing acredit to existing development for the existing 23,456 square feet, 50.61% of the costswill be allocated to existing development and 49.39% will be allocated to newdevelopment as shown below.

TABLE IV-B4ALLOCATION OF FIRE FACILITIES COSTS

Type ofDevelopment EDUs Percentage

of Total EDUsTotal Facilities

Sq. Ft. in 2035

Sq. Ft. Creditfor Existing

Development

Building Sq. Ft.Net of Credit

Percentageof Costs

Allocated

Facility CostsAllocated

ExistingDevelopment 39,016 71.31% 39,905 (23,456) 16,449 50.61% $7,629,681

FutureDevelopment 15,694 28.69% 16,051 0 16,051 49.39% $7,445,494

Total 54,709 100.00% 55,956 (23,456) 32,500 100.00% $15,075,175



Support Staff Vehicles

The City currently has eight existing vehicles. The City has determined the vehiclesidentified on Table IV-B3 will be needed to serve new development. Since the existingvehicles of 0.205 vehicles per 1,000 EDUs (8 vehicles divided by 39,016 EDUs) isgreater than the buildout vehicles of 0.201 per 1,000 EDUs (11 vehicles divided by54,709 EDUs), 100% of the costs will be allocated to new development.

Secondary Unit Vehicles

The City currently has three existing vehicles. The City has determined the vehiclesidentified on Table IV-B3 will be needed to serve new development. Since the existingvehicles of 0.077 vehicles per 1,000 EDUs (3 vehicles divided by 39,016 EDUs) isgreater than the buildout vehicles of 0.073 per 1,000 EDUs (4 vehicles divided by54,709 EDUs), 100% of the costs will be allocated to new development.


See Table IV-B5 for the total facilities costs allocated to new and existing development.

TABLE IV-B5TOTAL COSTS

New FacilityCost Allocated

to ExistingDevelopment

Cost Allocatedto Future

DevelopmentTotal Costs

Building Sq. Ft. $7,629,681 $7,445,494 $15,075,175

Support Staff Vehicles $0 $60,892 $60,892

Secondary Unit Vehicles $0 $1,372,641 $1,372,641

Total $7,629,681 $8,879,027 $16,508,708



Proposed Fee Amount

The Fee per EDU was calculated by dividing the costs allocated to future developmentby the number of future EDUs. See Table IV-B6 for the fee amount for each land use.

TABLE IV-B6PROPOSED FEES




Sq. Ft.


Residential Property

Single Family 4,677 $565.76 $2,646,081Multi-Family 1,703 $517.86 $881,910Transient Oriented Development 7,838 $350.73 $2,749,020


Retail 1,613 $162.39 $261,995Commercial 1,623 $68.51 $111,181Food Service & Entertainment 216 $880.34 $189,920Office 858 $702.89 $603,080Warehousing – Standard 52 $219.28 $11,403Warehousing – High Cube 6,094 $36.95 $225,164Manufacturing and Assembly 1,115 $189.70 $211,431Industrial – Other 36 $179.29 $6,500Institutional & Health Care 2,652 $361.90 $959,772Hotel/Motel 132 $163.77 $21,570

Total $8,879,027Cost Allocated to Existing Development $7,629,681Total Cost of Fire Facilities $16,508,708

Based on the development projections in Section III and Appendix A, the fee amountpresented in Table IV-B6 above are expected to finance approximately 54% of the facilitiesneeded. The City will need to fund the remaining costs from other sources of funds.

SECTION IV: FEE CALCULATIONS -PARKS FEE


C. PARKS FACILITIES

Public parks play an important part in the overall quality of life for residents in the Cityof Redlands. The Fee Study includes a component for new parks and trails. Table IV-C1illustrates how the parks fee will meet the requirements of AB1600 with regard to useof the fee, the type of development funded or partially funded by the fee revenue, thereasonable relationship to the need for facilitiesx and the proportionality requirements.

TABLE IV-C1PARKS FACILITIES



Provide a revenue source that will provide funds toacquire land and construct park and trail facilitiesthat will mitigate the impacts of new residentialdevelopment to the City’s Parks facilities.


Acquisition of land and development of parks andtrails and construction of community centers.

66001(a)(3)


relationship between thefee’s use and the type ofdevelopment project on

which the fee is imposed

New residential development in the City willgenerate additional residents increasing the needfor Parks facilities. Park and trail facilities andcommunity centers used to provide these serviceswill have to be expanded or constructed to meet thisincreased demand.

66001(a)(4)


relationship between theneed for the public



The additional residents from new development willimpact demand for Parks facilities. New parks andtrail facilities and community centers are needed tomitigate the impacts of the additional residents. Ifadditional park and trail facilities are notconstructed, then the overall quality of life forresidents in the City will suffer.

66001(b)


relationship between theamount of the fee and

the cost of the publicfacility

The Parks Facilities fee is based on the cost toprovide park and trail facilities and communitycenters.



EXISTING FACILITIES

See Table IV-C2 for a summary of the existing inventory of the City’s park facilities.

TABLE IV-C2EXISTING PARKS, TRAILS, AND COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDINGS

Park Facility Units

Existing ParksBrookside Park 9.2 AcresCaroline Park 16.8 AcresCommunity Park 18.2 AcresCrafton Park 7.5 AcresEd Hales Park 0.3 AcresFord Park 27.0 AcresFranklin Park 0.6 AcresJennie Davis Park 5.2 AcresProspect Park 11.4 AcresSimonds Parkway 0.9 AcresSmiley Park 9.2 AcresSylvan Park 23.3 AcresTexonia Park 8.8 AcresThe Terrace 2.5 AcresIsreal Beal Park 8.1 AcresOakmont Park 14.6 AcresRedlands Sports Park 48.0 AcresHeritage Park 18.7 AcresOrange Street Alley 0.1 Acres

Total Park Acreage 230.3 Acres

Orange Blossom Trail Phases 1, 2, & 3 4.48 Acres [1]

Existing Community Center BuildingsRedlands Community Center 22,900 Sq. Ft.Redlands Community Senior Center 7,500 Sq. Ft.Joslyn Senior Center 8,925 Sq. Ft.Redlands Bowl 3,046 Sq. Ft.Mission Gables 5,014 Sq. Ft.

Total Buildings 47,385 Sq. Ft.[1] Based on trail length of 3.7 miles and standard width of 10 ft per US Dept.of Transportation.



PROPOSED FACILITIES

In order to determine the proposed facilities, the City must determine the demand uponinfrastructure created by new development. It is clear new residential development inthe City will impact the City’s current park and trail system.

The capacity of the park and trail facilities is finite and will reach practical limits (throughpark and trail visitors). When capacity is exceeded, the level of service afforded toexisting development will be reduced. In other words, if development continues withoutan increase in the number park and trail facilities and community center, the existingfacilities would be overwhelmed in terms of providing Parks services. Additionaldemands will be made upon the previously listed assets in Table IV-C2 above andtherefore, such assets would need to be expanded.

Table IV-C3 identifies the park and trail facilities and community center proposed to befunded in whole or in part with the collection of Parks fees. Quantity and costs are basedon estimates provided by the City.

TABLE IV-C3NEEDS LIST

Parks Facilities Facility Unit Number Facility Cost (2016)

Park Acres Acres 118.0 $41,508,350Community Center Buildings Sq. Ft. 24,271 $7,488,046

TrailsOrange Blossom Trail Phase 4 Acres 4.61 $921,212Zanja Trail Acres 5.00 $1,000,000Other Trail facilities Acres 5.00 $1,000,000

Total 14.61 $2,872,581

Grand Total $51,917,608


For Parks facilities, the development of property into residential uses generatesresidents increasing the need for Parks facilities. Developed park acreage, trails, andcommunity center buildings will have to be expanded, constructed or purchased tomeet this increased demand.

City records do not indicate a significant link between the business community andpark use, therefore, no fee is required from non-residential property. Therefore, theEDUs for existing and future development are based on the residents generated fromexisting and future residential units. There are no EDUs assigned to Non-ResidentialProperty.



As shown in Section III.4 (Demographics - EDUs), there are 27,149 total existingresidential EDUs and 11,095 future residential EDUs, bringing the total residentialEDUs in 2035 to 38,243 EDUs.

Allocation of Costs

The total cost of $51,917,608, as shown in Table IV-C3 above, for Parks facilitiesneeded to serve existing and new development is allocated to existing and newdevelopment based on the share of total EDUs in 2035.

Park Acres

Table IV-C4 summarizes the allocation of park acreage development costs to existingand new development. The City currently has 230.3 acres of existing parks. Based onthe locations of existing and new development, additional park facilities will be neededat various locations. The City has determined 118.0 new park acres are needed toadequately serve both existing and new development, bringing the total to 348.3acres. Therefore, after providing a credit to existing development for the existing 230.3acres, 14.35% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 85.65% willbe allocated to new development as shown below.

TABLE IV-C4ALLOCATION OF PARK ACREAGE COSTS

Type ofDevelopment

ResidentialEDUs

Percentageof Total

EDUs

Total ParkAcres in

2035

Acres Creditfor Existing

Development

Acres Net ofCredit

Percentage ofCosts Allocated


ExistingDevelopment 27,149 70.99% 247.3 (230.3) 16.9 14.35% $5,956,471

FutureDevelopment 11,095 29.01% 101.1 0 101.1 85.65% $35,551,879

Total 38,243 100.00% 348.3 (230.3) 118.0 100.00% $41,508,350

Future Community Center Buildings

Table IV-C5 summarizes the allocation of the future community center building coststo existing and new development. The City currently has 47,385 square feet of existingcommunity center buildings. The City has determined 24,271 new building square feetare needed to adequately serve both existing and new development, bringing the totalto 71,656 square feet. Therefore, after providing a credit to existing development forthe existing 47,385 square feet, 14.35% of the costs will be allocated to existingdevelopment and 85.65% will be allocated to new development as shown below.



TABLE IV-C5ALLOCATION OF COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES COSTS

Type ofDevelopment

ResidentialEDUs

Percentageof Total

EDUs

Total Bldg.Sq. Ft. in

2035

Sq. Ft. Creditfor Existing

Development

Sq. Ft. Net ofCredit



ExistingDevelopment 27,149 70.99% 50,868 (47,385) 3,483 14.35% $1,074,539

FutureDevelopment 11,095 29.01% 20,788 0 20,788 85.65% $6,413,507

Total 38,243 100.00% 71,656 (47,385) 24,271 100.00% $7,488,046

Trail Acres

Table IV-C6 summarizes the allocation of trail acreage development costs to existingand new development. The City currently has 4.48 acres of existing trails. Based onthe locations of existing and new development, additional trails will be needed atvarious locations. The City has determined 14.61 new trail acres are needed toadequately serve both existing and new development, bringing the total to 19.1 acres.Therefore, after providing a credit to existing development for the existing 4.48 acres,62.08% of the costs will be allocated to existing development and 37.92% will beallocated to new development as shown below.

TABLE IV-C6ALLOCATION OF TRAIL ACREAGE COSTS

Type ofDevelopment

ResidentialEDUs

Percentageof Total

EDUs

Total TrailAcres in

2035

Acres Creditfor Existing

Development

Acres Net ofCredit



ExistingDevelopment 27,149 70.99% 13.6 (4.5) 9.1 62.08% $1,813,524

FutureDevelopment 11,095 29.01% 5.5 0 5.5 37.92% $1,107,688

Total 38,243 100.00% 19.1 (4.5) 14.6 100.00% $2,921,212




See Table IV-C7 for the total facilities costs allocated to new and existing development.

TABLE IV-C7TOTAL COSTS

Proposed Fee Amount

The Fee per EDU was calculated by dividing the costs allocated to future developmentby the number of future EDUs. See Table IV-C8 for the fee amount for each land use.

TABLE IV-C8PROPOSED FEES




Sq. Ft.



Single Family 4,677 $3,882.30 $18,157,502Multi-Family 1,703 $3,553.55 $6,051,698Transient Oriented Development 7,838 $2,406.72 $18,863,874

Total $43,073,074Cost Allocated to Existing Development $8,844,534Total Cost of Fire Facilities $$51,917,608

Based on the development projections in Section III and Appendix A, the fee amountpresented in Table IV-C8 above are expected to finance approximately 83% of the facilitiesneeded. The City will need to fund the remaining costs from other sources of funds.





Park Acres $5,956,471 $35,551,879 $41,508,350

Community Center Buildings $1,074,539 $6,413,507 $7,488,046

Trails $1,813,524 $1,107,688 $2,921,212

Total $8,844,534 $43,073,074 $51,917,608

SECTION IV: FEE CALCULATIONS -LIBRARY FEE


D. LIBRARY FACILITIES

The Library Facilities will serve the residents of Redlands by promoting literacy andlearning, as well as providing an improved quality of life. The Fee Study includes acomponent for the acquisition of new library collection items and theremodel/refurbishment of existing library facilities. Table IV-D1 illustrates how thelibrary fee will meet the requirements of AB1600 with regard to use of fees, the type ofdevelopment on which the fee is imposed, the reasonable relationship to the need forcollection items, and proportionality requirements.

TABLE IV-D1LIBRARY FEE – AB1600 COMPLIANCE



Provide a revenue source that will provide funds toacquire various library collection items andremodel/refurbish existing facilities that will mitigatethe impacts of new residential development to theCity’s Library facilities.


Expansion of library collection items andremodel/refurbishment of existing facilities.Collection items include, but are not limited to,books, periodicals, newspapers, DVDs, e-books, etc.

66001(a)(3)




New residential development in the City will generateadditional residents who will become library patrons.Existing facilities will need to beremodeled/refurbished and collections will have tobe expanded and additional volumes acquired tomeet this increased demand. Fees collected fromnew residential development will be used for theacquisition of collection items andremodel/refurbishment of existing facilities. Cityrecords do not indicate a significant link between thebusiness community and library use, therefore, nofee is required from non-residential property.

66001(a)(4)





The additional residents from new development willimpact demand for library space and collectionitems. Existing facility space will need to beremodeled/refurbished and new collection items areneeded to mitigate the impacts of the additionalresidents. If existing facilities are notremodeled/refurbished and additional librarycollection items are not acquired, then the City’slibraries will have insufficient space and materials.




66001(b)




The library fee is based on the cost to provide newmaterials at the same levels as provided to existingresidents.

EXISTING FACILITIES

The City of Redlands currently has two library facilities totaling 47,526 building squarefeet and 714,683 collection items. Collection items include, but are not limited to, books,periodicals, newspapers, DVDs, e-books, etc. See Table IV-D2 for a summary of theexisting inventory.

TABLE IV-D2EXISTING LIBRARY FACILITIES

Library Facilities Facility Unit Units

Library Facility Building Size

A.K. Smiley Library Building SF 43,876Lincoln Memorial Shrine SF 3,650

Total Library Facilities 47,526

Existing Library MaterialsBooks Books 133,174Non-Book Items Units 581,509

Total 714,683



PROPOSED FACILITIES

Table IV-D3 identifies the library materials as well as remodeling/refurbishing existinglibrary facilities proposed to be funded with the collection of Library fees. Quantity andcosts are based on estimates provided by the City.

TABLE IV-D3NEEDS LIST

Library Facilities FacilityUnit Number Facility Cost

Future Library Materials Costs

Books Books 2,660 $93,100Non-Book Items Units 116,000 $27,320

Subtotal $120,420

Remodel/Refurbish Existing Facilities Sq. Ft. NA $9,505,000



For library facilities, the development of property into residential uses generatesresidents who increase the demand on the finite amount of library space and collectionitems.

City records do not indicate a significant link between the business community andlibrary use, therefore, no fee is required from non-residential property. Therefore, theEDUs for existing and future development are based on the residents generated fromexisting and future residential units. There are no EDUs assigned to Non-ResidentialProperty.

As shown in Section III.4 (Demographics - EDUs), there are 27,149 total existingresidential EDUs and 11,095 future residential EDUs, bringing the total residentialEDUs in 2035 to 38,243 EDUs.

Allocation of Costs

The total cost of $9,625,420, as shown in Table IV-D3 above, is for library collectionitems needed to serve new development and remodeling/refurbishing existingfacilities needed to serve existing and new development. Described below is moredetail regarding the methodology used to allocate the costs.

Future Book Items

The City currently has 133,174 books in its library system. The City has determinedthe 2,660 new books identified on Table IV-D3 will be needed to serve newdevelopment. Since the existing books of 4.905 per EDU (133,174 divided by 27,149



EDUs) is greater than the buildout books of 3.552 per EDU (135,834 books divided by38,243 EDUs), 100% of the costs will be allocated to new development.

Future Non-Book Items

The City currently has 581,509 non-book items in its library system. The City hasdetermined the 116,000 new non-book items identified on Table IV-D3 will be neededto serve new development. Since the existing non-book items of 21.419 per EDU(581,509 divided by 27,149 EDUs) is greater than the buildout non-book items of18.239 per EDU (697,509 non-book items divided by 38,243 EDUs), 100% of thecosts will be allocated to new development.

Remodel/Refurbish Existing Library Facilities

Table IV-D4 summarizes the allocation of remodel/refurbishment costs to existing andnew development. The City currently has 47,526 of existing building square footagewhich will need to be remodeled/refurbished in order to serve both existing and futuredevelopment. Therefore, 70.99% of the costs will be allocated to existing developmentand 29.01% will be allocated to new development as shown below.

TABLE IV-D4ALLOCATION OF REMODEL/REFURBISHMENT OF LIBRARY BUILDING COSTS

Type of Development ResidentialEDUs

Percentageof Total

EDUs

Total BuildingSq. Ft. in

2035


Existing Development 27,149 70.99% 33,738 $6,747,516

Future Development 11,095 29.01% 13,788 $2,757,484

Total 38,243 100.00% 47,526 $9,505,000


See Table IV-D5 for the total facilities costs allocated to new and existing development.

TABLE IV-D5TOTAL COSTS





Books $0 $93,100 $93,100

Non-Book Items $0 $27,320 $27,320

Remodel/Refurbish Existing Buildings $6,747,516 $2,757,484 $9,505,000

Total $6,747,516 $2,877,904 $9,625,420



Proposed Fee Amount

The Fee per EDU was calculated by dividing the costs allocated to future developmentby the number of future EDUs. See Table IV-D6 for the fee amount for each land use.

TABLE IV-D6PROPOSED FEES

Land Use Type EDUs PerUnit [2]

EDUs per1,000 Sq. Ft.

Units / 1,000SF

DevelopmentImpact Fee

Per Unit

CostFinanced by

DIFResidential Property

Single Family 1.000 NA 4,677 $259.39 $1,213,184Multi-Family 0.915 NA 1,703 $237.43 $404,341Transient Oriented Development 0.620 NA 7,838 $160.80 $1,260,380

Non-Residential Property NA NA NA NA $0Total $2,877,904Cost Allocated to Existing Development $6,747,516Total Cost of Library Facilities $9,625,420

Based on the development projections in Section III and Appendix A, the fee amountpresented in Table IV-D6 above are expected to finance 30% of the facilities needed. The Citywill need to fund the remaining costs from other sources of funds.

SECTION IV: FEE CALCULATIONS -GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIESFEE


E. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

The General Government Facilities will serve the residents and employees of Redlandsby providing general government services. The Fee Study includes a component for newIT hardware, a government center/safety hall, and a downtown public parking facility.Table IV-E1 illustrates how the government facilities fee will meet the requirements ofAB1600 with regard to use of the fee, the type of development funded or partially fundedby the fee revenue, the reasonable relationship to the need for facilities and theproportionality requirements.

TABLE IV-E1GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES



Provide a revenue source that will provide funds topurchase and install additional IT hardware andconstruct a government center/safety hall buildingand public parking facility that will mitigate theimpacts of new residential and non-residentialdevelopment to the City’s general governmentfacilities.


Purchase and installation of IT hardware andconstruction of new government center/safety hallbuilding and public parking facility.

66001(a)(3)




New residential and non-residential development inthe City will generate additional residents andemployees increasing the need for generalgovernment services. IT hardware, buildings, andpublic parking facilities used to provide theseservices will have to be expanded, constructed orpurchased to meet this increased demand.

66001(a)(4)





The additional residents and employees from newdevelopment will impact demand for generalgovernment facilities. New IT hardware and a newgovernment center/safety hall and public parkingfacility are needed to mitigate the impacts of theadditional residents and employees. If additionalgovernment facilities are not constructed and IThardware not installed, then overall generalgovernment services provided to the residents andemployees in the City will suffer.




66001(b)




The General Government Facilities fee is based onthe cost to provide new IT hardware and newgovernment center/safety hall and parkingfacilities.

EXISTING IT HARDWARE, CITY HALL, AND POLICE FACILITY

See Table IV-E2 for a summary of the existing inventory of the City’s IT hardware andexisting government facility.

TABLE IV-E2EXISTING IT HARDWARE, GOVERNMENT FACILITY, AND POLICE FACILITY

Facility Units

IT HardwareSwitch and Firewall Equipment 72 unitsServers and Appliances 65 unitsComputers 840 unitsLaptops 94 units

Existing City Hall 47,500 Square Feet

Existing Police Department Facility 23,838 Square Feet

In addition, the City currently has public parking lots and a public parking structure. TheCity Council recently approved the sale of existing City parking lot areas and a parkingstructure located at and surrounding the existing Redlands Mall. Proceeds from the salein the amount of $1,950,000, are designated to acquire/construct new public parkingfacilities in the downtown area.

PROPOSED FACILITIES

In order to determine the proposed facilities, the City must determine the demand uponinfrastructure created by new development. It is clear all new development in the Citywill impact the City’s current ability to provide general government services.

The capacity of the government facilities is finite and will reach practical limits (throughvarious general government requests). When capacity is exceeded, the level of serviceafforded to existing development will be reduced. In other words, if developmentcontinues without an increase in the number of IT hardware and government centerfacilities, the existing facilities would be overwhelmed in terms of providing general



government services. Additional demands will be made upon the previously listed assetin Table IV-E2 above and therefore, such assets would need to be expanded.

Table IV-E3 identifies the IT hardware and Government Center/Safety Hall and ParkingFacilities proposed to be funded in whole or in part with the collection of GeneralGovernment fees. Quantity and costs are based on estimates provided by the City.

TABLE IV-E3NEEDS LIST

General Government Facilities Facility Unit Number Facility Cost (2016)

IT Hardware Units CostsSwitch and Firewall Equipment Units 29 $380,366Servers and Appliances Units 26 $626,803Computers Units 338 $506,099Laptops Units 38 $421,417

Total 431 $1,933,685

Government Center/Safety Hall Square Feet 276,000 $27,343,805 [1]

Downtown Parking Facility NA NA $2,734,381 [2]


[1] Total cost is equal to $60,000,000. Of this amount, $32,656,195 will be funded from other non-impact feesources.[2] Total cost is expected to exceed $3,000,000. The City will fund all remaining costs from other non-impact feesources.


For general government facilities, the development of property into residential andnon-residential uses generates residents and employees increasing the need forgeneral government services. IT hardware, government center buildings, and parkingfacilities used to provide these services will have to be expanded, constructed orpurchased to meet this increased demand.


As shown in Section IV.4 (Demographics - EDUs), there are 39,016 total existing EDUsand 15,694 future EDUs, bringing the total EDUs in 2035 to 54,709 EDUs.



Allocation of Costs

The total cost of $29,277,490, as shown in Table IV-E4 above, for general governmentfacilities needed to serve existing and new development is allocated to existing andnew development based on the share of total EDUs in 2035.

IT Hardware

The City currently has 1,071 units of existing IT hardware which results in an existingstandard of 0.02745 units of IT hardware per EDU. Based on this standard, the Cityhas determined 431 units of new IT hardware are needed to adequately serve newdevelopment. Therefore, 100% of the costs for the new units in the amount of$1,933,685 will be allocated to new development.

Future Government Center/Safety Hall

Table IV-E5 summarizes the allocation of the future government center/safety hallbuilding costs to existing and new development. The City has determined that theexisting City Hall facility and existing police department facility will need to be replacedwith a new 276,000 building square foot government center and safety hall in orderto adequately serve both existing and new development. The new facility will belocated near the Corporate Yard on Park Street with public access from RedlandsBoulevard. The total cost of the new facility is equal to $60 million. Of this amount,the City has determined that $19,500,000 has already been funded from existingdevelopment. This results in a cost per EDU of $499.80 (i.e., $19,500,000 divided by39,016 existing EDUs). The City has determined that future development will pay thesame $499.80 per EDU in order to maintain the existing standard. This wouldgenerate $7,843,805 from future development (i.e., $499.80 x 15,694 future EDUs).Therefore, the City will fund the remaining costs of $32,656,195 from other sources.

TABLE IV-E5ALLOCATION OF GOVERNMENT CENTER/SAFETY HALL FACILITIES COSTS

Type of Development EDUs Facility CostsAllocated

Total CostPer EDU

Existing Development 39,016 $19,500,000 $499.80

Future Development 15,694 $7,843,805 $499.80

Total 54,709 $27,343,805 NA

Future Downtown Parking Facility

Table IV-E6 summarizes the allocation of the future downtown parking facility costs toexisting and new development. As mentioned above, the City currently has parkingfacilities which will be replaced with new parking facilities in order to adequately serve



both existing and new development. The new facilities would include parking lots andparking structures that would be publicly owned. The total cost of the new facilities isexpected to exceed $3,000,000.

Of the total cost mentioned above, the City has determined that $1,950,000 hasalready been funded from existing development. This results in a cost per EDU of$49.98 (i.e., $1,950,000 divided by 39,016 existing EDUs). The City has determinedfuture development should pay the same $49.98 per EDU in order to maintain theexisting standard. This would generate $784,381 from future development (i.e.,$49.98 x 15,694 future EDUs). Therefore, the City will fund the remaining costs fromother sources.

TABLE IV-E6ALLOCATION OF DOWNTOWN PARKING FACILITY COSTS

Type ofDevelopment EDUs Facility Costs

AllocatedTotal Cost

Per EDU

ExistingDevelopment 39,016 $1,950,000 $49.98

FutureDevelopment 15,694 $784,381 $49.98

Total 54,709 $2,734,381 NA


See Table IV-E7 for the total facilities costs allocated to new and existing development.

TABLE IV-E7TOTAL COSTS





IT Hardware $0 $1,933,685 $1,933,685

Government Center/Safety Hall $19,500,000 $7,843,805 $27,343,805

Downtown Parking Facility $1,950,000 $784,381 $2,734,381

Total $21,450,000 $10,561,871 $32,011,871



Proposed Fee Amount

The Fee per EDU was calculated by dividing the costs allocated to future developmentby the number of future EDUs. See Table IV-E8 for the fee amount for each land use.

TABLE IV-E8PROPOSED FEES


,Units/Rooms/1,000Sq. Ft.


Sq. Ft.



Single Family 4,677 $672.99 $3,147,593Multi-Family 1,703 $616.01 $1,049,059Transient Oriented Development 7,838 $417.20 $3,270,042


Retail 1,613 $193.17 $311,651Commercial 1,623 $81.50 $132,254Food Service & Entertainment 216 $1,047.19 $225,916Office 858 $836.11 $717,382Warehousing – Standard 52 $260.84 $13,564Warehousing – High Cube 6,094 $43.95 $267,839Manufacturing and Assembly 1,115 $225.65 $251,503Industrial – Other 36 $213.27 $7,732Institutional & Health Care 2,652 $430.49 $1,141,678Hotel/Motel 132 $194.80 $25,658

Total $10,561,871Cost Allocated to Existing Development $21,450,000Total Cost of Gen. Gov. Facilities $32,011,871

Based on the development projections in Section III and Appendix A, the fee amountpresented in Table IV-E8 above are expected to finance approximately 33% of the facilitiesneeded. The City will need to fund the remaining costs from other sources of funds.

SECTION IV: FEE CALCULATIONS -TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES FEE


F. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES

The planning tool the City uses to identify current and future needs for an effective overallcirculation system within the City is the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Mandated byState Law, the Circulation Element must be linked to the Land Use Element of the GeneralPlan. In addition, the Circulation Element must be consistent with, and integrated with, theRiverside-San Bernardino Area Comprehensive Transportation Plan Model (CTP Model).Consistency is a requirement for eligibility for State and local transportation funds.

The Circulation Element of the City's General Plan serves as the City's Transportation MasterPlan, which identifies future transportation facilities needed to mitigate the impacts of newdevelopment through build out conditions, beyond the year 2035. The City provided a listingof future transportation facilities needed to mitigate the impacts of new development through2035. The facilities listed included interchanges, railroad grade separations, regionalarterials, local arterials, and local streets and signals. Project limits and costs for the firstthree categories are consistent with SANBAG Development Mitigation Nexus Study and theSANBAG Congestion Management Plan ("CMP"), with appropriate cost escalators,

City staff uses current traffic and land use data to update their traffic model. Any significantchanges to impacts resulting from new development are incorporated into the City's CapitalImprovement Program (CIP) at regular intervals. Such changes are also incorporated into theCirculation Element at periodic intervals.

Table IV-F1 illustrates how the transportation fee will meet the requirements of AB1600 withregard to use of fees, the type of development funded or partially funded by the fee revenue,the reasonable relationship to the need for facilities, and the proportionality requirements.



TABLE IV-F1TRANSPORTATION FEE – AB1600 COMPLIANCE



Provide a revenue source that will provide funds toconstruct various transportation projects that willmitigate the impacts of new development on the City'scirculation system

66001(a)(2)Identify the use to

which the fee is to beput

Fund or partially fund the construction of new roadwayswithin the City limits. The roadway improvements to befunded or partially funded are summarized in Table IV-F5 and further listed in Appendix B

66001(a)(3)


relationship betweenthe fee’s use and thetype of developmentproject on which the

fee is imposed

New residential and non residential development willgenerate additional traffic on City streets. The feerevenue will be used to construct new transportationprojects upon which new residents and employees willtravel. A fee imposed on new residential and nonresidential development is a reasonable method formitigating the impacts of such new development

66001(a)(4)



facilities and the typeof development project

on which the fee isimposed

The additional traffic volumes generated by newdevelopment will impact current levels of congestion.New roadways and supplemental lanes are needed tomitigate the impacts of the increased traffic volumes. Ifthe proposed projects are not constructed in concertwith new development the City's circulation system willexperience higher traffic volumes and increase the levelof congestion to a condition well below City standards

66001(b)




Project costs are allocated to new development basedon the percentage of traffic volume generated by newdevelopment to the total traffic volume at buildout . Thespecific fee imposed on the various land uses are basedon the relative trip generation rate as compared to aresidential unit (baseline rate or EDU factor)

PROPOSED FACILITIES AND COSTS

As mentioned above, City Staff provided a detailed breakdown of the citywide transportationprojects needed to mitigate the impacts of new development through the year 2035. Whilethe year 2035 precedes build out conditions, it was chosen as a reasonable planning horizonwith respect to the City's circulation system. The projects consist of city wide roadway



improvements totaling over $307 million. The project list includes improvements tointerchanges, railroad grade separations, regional arterials, local arterials, local streets andlocal signals. Roadway projects and intersection projects are part of the City's CirculationElement of the General Plan, the City of Redlands Traffic Model and the City's CapitalImprovement Program. The interchange projects as well as the grade separations and regionalarterial projects are part of the Riverside-San Bernardino Area Comprehensive TransportationPlan Model (CTP Model) by SCAG and SANBAG Nexus Study and CMP. These projects areidentified by these models and master plans as being needed solely or partially to mitigatethe impacts of new development. Where projects are partially needed to cure existingdeficiencies or otherwise benefit existing development, those projects would have to befunded by sources other than impact fees.

Regional and local arterials, local streets and signals will be constructed on existing Citystreets and will benefit both existing and new development. The allocations to newdevelopment are based on the percentage of average daily trip ends ("ADTs") generated bynew development to the total ADTs of the City's roadway network. ADT's assigned tointerchanges and regional arterials are consistent with the SANBAG Nexus Study. Thecalculation of the ADTs and percentage of total ADTs for local arterials, streets and signals isshown in the discussion of "Methodology" within this Section of the Fee Study. The projectcategories, costs and allocations are shown in Table IV-F2,"Transportation Cost Summary":

TABLE IV-F2TRANSPORTATION COST SUMMARY

Component Total Project CostCost Allocated to

NewDevelopment

Interchange Improvements $218,375,714 $14,668,387Railroad Grade Crossings $2,012,723 $292,699Regional Arterials $73,705,000 $17,801,728Local Arterials $5,850,000 $6,166,586Local Signals $6,229,621 $1,515,505Local Streets $1,500,000 $484,749

Grand Total $307,673,057 $40,879,654

The list of projects to be funded, or partially funded are shown by components in Tables IV-F3through IV-F8. The total project cost as well as the costs allocated to new development arealso shown in the tables.



TABLE IV-F3INTERCHANGES

Location

SANBAG2013

EstimatedConstruction

Costs

ENR CostEscalationFactor to

2016

2016Estimated

Cost

SANBAG %Allocation to

NewDevelopment

SANBAGAllocation to

NewDevelopment

Redlands%

Allocation

Redlands $Allocation to

NewDevelopment

Interchange ImprovementsI-10 at Mountain View $50,895,000 1.0456 $53,214,296 37.80% $20,115,005 3.90% $784,485I-10 at California $44,533,000 1.0456 $46,562,380 47.80% $22,256,818 14.60% $3,249,495I-10 at Alabama $41,600,000 1.0456 $43,495,723 50.50% $21,965,340 34.90% $7,665,904I-10 at University $5,200,000 1.0456 $5,436,965 17.90% $973,217 100.00% $973,217I-10 at Wabash $40,000,000 1.0456 $41,822,810 35.80% $14,972,566 12.50% $1,871,571I-10 at Live Oak $18,630,000 1.0456 $19,478,974 37.00% $7,207,220 1.00% $72,072I-10 at 5th Street $8,000,000 1.0456 $8,364,562 44.10% $3,688,772 1.40% $51,643

Total $218,375,714 $91,178,938 $14,668,387

TABLE IV-F4RAILROAD GRADE CROSSINGS

Location/Type of Project

SANBAG2013


Cost


2016

2016Estimated

ConstructionCost

% Allocationto New

Development

CostAllocation to

NewDevelopment

San Timoteo Canyon Road $1,925,000 1.0456 $2,012,723 32.32% $292,699



TABLE IV-F5REGIONAL ARTERIALS

Location/Type of Project Limits

SANBAG2013


Cost


2016

2016Estimated

ConstructionCost

% Allocationto New

Development

CostAllocation to

NewDevelopment

ArterialsAlabama St N City Limit to Palmetto $10,653,000 1.0456 $11,138,460 23.10% $2,572,984California St Redlands Blvd. to I-10 $777,000 1.0456 $812,408 23.10% $187,666California St Lugonia to San Bernardino Ave $943,000 1.0456 $985,973 23.10% $227,760Citrus Ave Auburn to Wabash $777,000 1.0456 $812,408 23.10% $187,666Citrus Ave Dearborn to Wabash $1,184,000 1.0456 $1,237,955 23.10% $285,968Cypress Ave I-10 to Citrus $638,000 1.0456 $677,074 23.10% $154,094Ford Ave 5th to I-10 $2,058,000 1.0456 $2,151,784 23.10% $497,062Live Oak Cyn Rd San Time Cyn to E City Limits $6,004,000 1.0456 $6,277,604 23.10% $1,450,126Lugonia Ave Orange to Wabash $7,398,000 1.0456 $7,735,129 23.10% $1,786,815Lugonia Ave Tennessee to Orange $3,456,000 1.0456 $3,613,491 23.10% $834,716Mountain View Ave Lugonia to San Bernardino Ave $516,000 1.0456 $539,514 23.10% $124,628Orange St Lugonia to I-10 $2,960,000 1.0456 $3,094,888 23.10% $714,919Orange St N City Limit to Pioneer $9,346,000 1.0456 $9,771,900 23.10% $2,257,309Orange St San Bernardino to Lugonia $1,304,000 1.0456 $1,363,424 23.10% $314,951Orange St San Bernardino to Pioneer $707,000 1.0456 $739,218 23.10% $170,759Redlands Blvd Alabama/Colton Intersection $5,763,000 1.0456 $6,025,621 23.10% $1,391,919San Bernardino Ave SR 210 to Orange $1,972,000 1.0456 $2,061,865 23.10% $476,291San Bernardino Ave Church to Wabash $2,744,000 1.0456 $2,869,045 23.10% $662,749SR 38(Orange/Lugonia)

W City Limit to E City Limit $7,990,000 1.0456 $8,354,106 23.10% $1,929,799Wabash Ave 5th to I-10 $4,412,000 1.0456 $4,613,056 23.10% $1,065,616Traffic Signal Pioneer/Orange $232,000 1.0456 $242,572 23.10% $56,034Traffic Signal Wabash/5th $232,000 1.0456 $242,572 23.10% $56,034Traffic Signal Wabash/I-10 $232,000 1.0456 $242,572 23.10% $56,034Traffic Signal Ford/I-10 $232,000 1.0456 $242,572 23.10% $56,034Traffic Signal Dearborn/Citrus $232,000 1.0456 $242,572 23.10% $56,034Traffic Signal Ford/I-10 WB $237,000 1.0456 $247,800 23.10% $57,242Traffic Signal 6th/I-10 EB Onramp $232,000 1.0456 $242,572 23.10% $56,034Traffic Signal 6th/I-10 WB Off ramp $232,000 1.0456 $242,572 23.10% $56,034Traffic Signal Wabash/Citrus $242,000 1.0456 $253,028 23.10% $58,449

Total $17,801,728



TABLE IV-F6LOCAL ARTERIALS


SANBAG2013


Cost


2016

2016Estimated

ConstructionCost

% Allocationto New

Development

CostAllocation to

NewDevelopment

ArterialsColton Ave Widen to 4 Lanes Texas to Orange $1,090,000 1.0456 $1,139,672 100.00% $1,139,672Texas Ave Widen to 4 Lanes Colton to Pennsylvania $1,970,000 1.0456 $2,059,773 100.00% $2,059,773Intersection Improvements Orange/Pearl $500,000 1.0456 $522,785 100.00% $522,785Intersection Improvements Orange/Stuart $40,000 1.0456 $41,823 100.00% $41,823Intersection Improvements Church/Colton $250,000 1.0456 $261,393 100.00% $261,393Traffic Signal Orange/Oriental $225,000 1.0456 $235,253 100.00% $235,253Traffic Signal 6th/Colton $425,000 1.0456 $444,367 100.00% $444,367Traffic Signal 6th/Stuart $275,000 1.0456 $287,532 100.00% $287,532Traffic Signal 6th/Citrus $275,000 1.0456 $287,532 100.00% $287,532Traffic Signal Eureka/Colton $250,000 1.0456 $261,393 100.00% $261,393Traffic Signal Eureka/Stuart $275,000 1.0456 $287,532 100.00% $287,532Traffic Signal University/Colton $275,000 1.0456 $287,532 100.00% $287,532

Total $5,850,000 $6,116,586 $6,116,586

TABLE IV-F7LOCAL SIGNAL PROJECTS


SANBAG2013


Cost


2016

2016Estimated

ConstructionCost

% Allocationto New

Development

CostAllocation to

NewDevelopment

Texas St. Pioneer Ave $350,000 1.0456 $365,950 32.32% $118,262University St Brockton Ave $300,000 1.0456 $313,671 32.32% $101,368Intelligent Traffic Management Varies $5,400,000 N/A $5,400,000 23.10% $1,247,400Fire-Signal Preempt System Varies $150,000 N/A $150,000 32.32% $48,478

Total $6,200,000 $6,229,621 $1,515,505



TABLE IV-F8LOCAL STREET PROJECTS


SANBAG2013


Cost


2016

2016Estimated

ConstructionCost

% Allocationto New

Development

CostAllocation to

NewDevelopment

Pioneer Ave Furlow Drive to Texas St $1,500,000 N/A 1,500,000 32.32% $484,749


For the purposes of allocating transportation costs to both existing and new development thedemand variable is the average daily trip end. This is a metric that estimates the number ofvehicular trips generated by a specific land use within a one hour period during that part ofthe day in which peak traffic volumes are observed. ADT was chosen as the demand variablebecause it is consistent with the metric used in the regional transportation plans mentionedat the beginning of this section and is an industry standard. Without question the design andcost estimates for new and expanded roadways are based on traffic volumes generated,congestion levels of service and standards adopted by the local agency. ADTs are a fair andreasonable measure of the demand placed on the City's roadway system. The ADTs generatedby a residential dwelling, whose value is determined from the ITE1 manual, is used as thebaseline variable. Comparison of ADTs for the other land uses to the baseline ADT producesEDU factors for the various land uses. When these factors are applied to the demographicdata for existing and new development, total calculated EDUs for existing and newdevelopment as a percentage of total EDUs can be used in the allocation of facility costs tonew development.

Trip Rates

As discussed in Section II the land uses considered upon which development impact fees willbe imposed include Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Office and Hotel/Motel, with theirvarious sub categories. Within the Residential category are single family, multi-family andtransit oriented subcategories, which were chosen to best fit the type of residentialdevelopment throughout the City, and for which the ITE manual has data and recommendedtrip rates. In a similar manner, the ITE Commercial land use designation includes commercial,retail trade and food service sub categories. Industrial category includes warehousing,manufacturing, general industrial and health care. Weighted average ADTs from the abovesubcategories are calculated for the purposes of determining existing and future ADTs andthe allocation of transportation costs to existing and new development. Weighted averageADTs will also be used to determine EDU factors needed to calculate the various fee levels.

1 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 8th Edition, Volumes 1,2 and 3



This is discussed further in the Methodology section below. Table IV-F9 shows the weightedaverage trip rates, in ADTs, for this study.

TABLE IV-F9AVERAGE DAILY TRIP ENDS – CITY WIDE

Land Use City/SANBAGDesignation

2016 City Uses ITEDesignation [1]

ITECode

ITE Ave.TripRate[2]

%Reductionfor pass-by trips

AverageTrip

Length

TripLengthFactor

AverageDailyTrip

Rate [4]

Residential(dwelling units) Single Family Single Family 9.94 7.4 1.02 10.09

Multi-Family Apartment 6.89 7.4 1.02 6.99Mobile Home Transit Oriented

Development [3] 7.06 7.4 1.02 7.17

Commercial/Retail Commercial Commercial 820 42.94 30% 5.39 0.74 22.22(1,000 s.f.) Retail Trade 814 44.32 30% 539 0.74 22.94

Food Service &Entertainment 931 89.95 30% 5.39 0.74 46.55

Industrial Industrial Warehousing Standard 150 3.89 8.87 1.22 4.73

(1,000 s.f.) Warehousing High Cube 152 1.44 8.87 1.22 1.75Manufacturing andAssembly

140 2.13 8.87 1.22 2.59

Industrial Other 110 6.97 8.87 1.22 8.48Institutional and HealthCare (Hospital) 610 16.5 8.87 1.22 20.08

Office (1,000 s.f.) Office General Office Building 710 11.01 8.87 1.22 13.40

Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel Hotel 310 8.92(Room) Motel 320 9.11

Hotel/Motel 9.02 5.66 0.78 7.00[1] ITE categories were chosen that best fit the intent and purpose of the City sub categories[2] The land use designations for non-residential uses in this Study differ completely from the 203 DIF. Therefore, ITE rates are used thatmost closely fit the descriptions for the new categories[3] This study assumes an ADT rate of 4.00 until better information is available. A rate of 4.00 is less than other high desity residential, andis reasonable[4] Numbers in this column (bold italic) are used in this study for calculating ADTs and Fee Schedule

In order to fairly allocate costs between existing and new development, total ADTs must becalculated for both cases. ADTs for existing development for a given land use category arefound by multiplying the number of residential units or one thousand square feet ("ksf") of nonresidential development in each category, as shown in Section III.1 "Existing DevelopmentWithin City," by the ADTs per unit or ksf from Table IV-F9, "Trip Generation Rates" shown above.



The total ADTs for existing development as well as the percentage of total ADTs are shown inTable IV-F10:

TABLE IV-F10EXISTING ADTS

Residential Property Amount Units Average DailyTrips per Unit/KSF ADTs

Single Family 19,547 Dwelling Units 10.09 197,229Multi-Family 7,406 Dwelling Units 6.99 51,797Transient Oriented Development 0 Dwelling Units 7.17 0

Non-Residential Property Amount Units Average DailyTrips per Unit/KSF ADTs

Retail Trade 3,280,718 Square Feet 22.94 75,254Commercial 3,301,780 Square Feet 22.22 73,379Food Service & Entertainment 438,842 Square Feet 46.55 20,430Office 1,744,700 Square Feet 13.40 23,372Warehousing – Standard 355,878 Square Feet 4.73 1,684Warehousing – High Cube 11,993,284 Square Feet 1.75 21,013Manufacturing and Assembly 2,165,052 Square Feet 2.59 5,611Industrial – Other 323,748 Square Feet 8.48 2,736Institutional & Health Care 5,391,797 Square Feet 20.08 108,246Hotel/Motel 268 Rooms 7.00 1,874

Grand Total 582,636Total ADTs 860,825

% of Total ADTs 67.68%

ADTs for future development for a given land use category are found by multiplying the numberof residential units or one thousand square feet ("ksf") of non-residential development in eachcategory, as shown in Section III.2 "Future Development Within City (2015-2035)", by the ADTsper unit or ksf from Table IV-F9, "Trip Generation Rates" shown above.



The total ADTs for existing development as well as the percentage of total ADTs are shown inTable IV-F11:

TABLE IV-F11FUTURE (GROWTH) ADTS

Residential Property Amount UnitsAverage Daily

Trips perUnit/KSF

ADTs

Single Family 4,677 Dwelling Units 10.09 47,191Multi-Family 1,703 Dwelling Units 6.99 11,911Transient Oriented Development 7,838 Dwelling Units 7.17 56,195

Non-Residential Property Amount UnitsAverage Daily

Trips perUnit/KSF

ADTs

Retail Trade 1,613,362 Square Feet 22.94 37,008Commercial 1,622,735 Square Feet 22.22 36,064Food Service & Entertainment 215,736 Square Feet 46.55 10,043Office 858,004 Square Feet 13.40 11,494Warehousing – Standard 52,001 Square Feet 4.73 246Warehousing – High Cube 6,093,809 Square Feet 1.75 10,677Manufacturing and Assembly 1,114,568 Square Feet 2.59 2,889Industrial – Other 36,256 Square Feet 8.48 307Institutional & Health Care 2,652,045 Square Feet 20.08 53,243Hotel/Motel 132 Rooms 7.00 922

278,189Total ADTs 860,825

% of Total ADTs 32.32%

The percentage of total ADTs for future development, as shown in the table above, is used inTable IV-F2, "Transportation Cost Summary" to allocate to new development new local streetand signal costs that have citywide benefit.

Allocation of Costs

The transportation costs allocated to new development are then divided by total new ADTs todetermine the cost per ADT. The cost per ADT is then multiplied by the ADT rate for a singlefamily unit. This is the baseline EDU used in calculating the various fees.



See Table IV-F12 for the calculation of the cost per single family unit, or baseline EDU:

TABLE IV-F12COST PER ADT

Total Cost of Transportation Projects Cost Allocated toNew Development Total New ADTs Cost per ADT

$302,273,057 $40,879,654 278,189 $146.95

Proposed Fee Amount

The EDU factors for the various land uses are determined by dividing the ADT rate for eachcorresponding land use by the ADT rate for the single family category (baseline rate). The EDUfactor for each land use is multiplied by the cost per EDU calculated in the preceding table todetermine the proposed fee. The proposed fee schedule for transportation is shown in TableIV-F13:

TABLE IV-F13TRANSPORTATION FEE SCHEDULE

Residential Property ADTs Cost Per ADTDevelopmentImpact Fee

per UnitUnits

Single Family 10.09 $146.95 $1,482.71 DUMulti-Family 6.99 $146.95 $1,027.76 DUTransient Oriented Development 7.17 $146.95 $1,053.56 DU

Non-Residential Property ADTs Cost Per ADT

DevelopmentImpact Feeper 1,000SF/Room

Units

Retail Trade 22.94 $146.95 $3,370.75 KSFCommercial 22.22 $146.95 $3,265.79 KSFFood Service & Entertainment 46.55 $146.95 $6,841.12 KSFOffice 13.40 $146.95 $1,968.57 KSFWarehousing – Standard 4.73 $146.95 $695.53 KSFWarehousing – High Cube 1.75 $146.95 $257.47 KSFManufacturing and Assembly 2.59 $146.95 $380.84 KSFIndustrial – Other 8.48 $146.95 $1,246.22 KSFInstitutional & Health Care 20.08 $146.95 $2,950.17 KSFHotel/Motel 7.00 $146.95 $1,028.54 Room

For the Transportation Fee calculation using a project specific traffic study, as permitted byCity rules, the ADT fee rate shall be $146.95 plus a 2% administrative charge and thenadjusted annually or as permitted by City rules and regulations.



Expected Revenue

Using the demographic data from Table IV-F11, "Future ADTs", the residential units or nonresidential square footages or hotel rooms are multiplied by the corresponding proposed feerates to determine the expected revenues.

As shown in Table IV-F14, the total expected revenue is equal to the transportation costsallocated to new development as shown in Table IV-F2, "Transportation Cost Summary.”

TABLE IV-F14REVENUE

Residential Property Units UnitsDevelopmentImpact Fee

per Unit


Single Family 4,677 Dwelling Units $1,482.71 $6,934,658Multi-Family 1,703 Dwelling Units $1,027.76 $1,750,270Transient Oriented Development 7,838 Dwelling Units $1,053.56 $8,257,815

Non-Residential Property SquareFeet/Rooms Units

DevelopmentImpact Feeper 1,000SF/Room


Retail Trade 1,613,362 SF $3,370.75 $5,438,233Commercial 1,622,735 SF $3,265.79 $5,299,514Food Service & Entertainment 215,736 SF $6,841.12 $1,475,875Office 858,004 SF $1,968.57 $1,689,040Warehousing – Standard 52,001 SF $695.53 $36,168Warehousing – High Cube 6,093,809 SF $257.47 $1,568,969Manufacturing and Assembly 1,114,568 SF $380.84 $424,472Industrial – Other 36,256 SF $1,246.22 $45,183Institutional & Health Care 2,652,045 SF $2,950.17 $7,823,985Hotel/Motel 132 Rooms $1,028.54 $135,470


SECTION V: IMPLEMENTATION


Table V-1 is a summary of the proposed fees for the various land uses within the six facilitycategories. These fees represent the maximum fee that can be charged to any land use.

In order to recover administrative costs incurred by the City in the administration of the Feeprogram, an administrative component of 2.0% of each fee is added on to the proposed feescalculated for each facility category. Table V-1 summarizes the total fees, including theadministrative component:



TABLE V-1CITY OF REDLANDS

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SUMMARY

Residential (fee per unit) Non-Residential (fee per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) Fee perRoom

Land Use

Sing

le F

amily

Mul

ti-Fa

mily

Tran

sit O

rient

edD

evel

opm

ent

Reta

il

Com

mer

cial

Food

Ser

vice

and

Ente

rtain

men

t

Offic

e

War

ehou

sing

–St

anda

rd

War

ehou

sing

–Hi

ghCu

be

Man

ufac

turin

g an

dAs

sem

bly

Indu

stria

l/Ot

her

Inst

itutio

nal a

nd H

ealth

Care

Hote

l/M

otel

Police Facilities $30.11 $27.56 $18.66 $8.64 $3.65 $46.85 $37.40 $11.67 $1.97 $10.09 $9.54 $19.26 $8.71

Fire Facilities $577.08 $528.21 $357.74 $165.64 $69.89 $897.94 $716.94 $223.67 $37.69 $193.49 $182.88 $369.14 $167.04

Park Facilities $3,959.94 $3,624.62 $2,454.85 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Library Facilities $264.58 $242.18 $164.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

GovernmentFacilities $686.45 $628.33 $425.55 $197.03 $83.13 $1,068.13 $852.83 $266.06 $44.83 $230.16 $217.54 $439.10 $198.70

TransportationFacilities $1,512.36 $1,048.32 $1,074.63 $3,438.17 $3,331.11 $6,977.94 $2,007.94 $709.44 $262.62 $388.46 $1,271.14 $3,009.17 $1,049.11

Totals $7,030.52 $6,099.22 $4,495.45 $3,809.48 $3,487.78 $8,990.86 $3,615.11 $1,210.84 $347.11 $822.20 $1,681.10 $3,836.67 $1,423.56



New development, at the time of permit issuance, or as proscribed by the Redlands MunicipalCode, shall pay the appropriate fee for each facility category and the City shall deposit thefunds in a separate account dedicated to the construction of the respective facilitiesproposed, in accordance with Government Code Section 66006(a).

Every five years the City shall report the status of the funds in accordance with GovernmentCode Section 66001(d) and shall i) identify the purpose to which the fee is put; ii) demonstratea reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charge, iii) identifythe sources and amounts of funding needed to complete the program, iv) list the facilities notyet completed, and v) identify, to the extent possible, the timing of when the remaining fundsare expected to be received.

It is further recommended that the City update its Capital Improvement Plan annually, byresolution of the City Council, in accordance with Government Code Section 66002.

Finally, it is recommended that the City include in its Council Resolution to adopt the feesrecommended in this Fee Study, a provision to automatically increase the fees annually tiedto an inflation index, such as the Engineering News Record Construction Price Index, or someother reasonable measure of inflation.

APPENDIX A

Demographics Summary

12/30/2016

CITY OF REDLANDSDEMOGRAPHICS INFORMATION & EDU CALCULATION

EDU SUMMARY BY FEE CATEGORYFee charged to Existing EDUs Future EDUs Total EDUs

Fee Category Development 2015 2015-2035 2035Police Fee Res. & Non-Res 39,016 15,694 54,709Fire Fee Res. & Non-Res 39,016 15,694 54,709Parks Fee Res. Only 27,149 11,095 38,243Library Fee Res. Only 27,149 11,095 38,243Government Facilities Fee Res. & Non-Res 39,016 15,694 54,709Transportation

EDU BACKUP

Number of Number of Residents per EDUS per TotalResidential Property Residents [1] Residential Units [1] Residential Unit Residential Unit Existing EDUs

Single Family 50,315 19,547 2.57 1.000 19,547Multi-Family 19,567 7,406 2.64 1.026 7,602Transient Oriented Development 0 0 NA NA NASubtotal 69,882 26,953 2.59 27,149

Number of Number of Non-Residential SF Employees per EDUs per TotalNon-Residential Property Employees [1] / Rooms [1] 1,000 Non-Res. SF / Room 1,000 Non-Res. SF / Room Existing EDUs

Retail 3,038 3,280,718 0.93 0.360 1,180Commercial 1,290 3,301,780 0.39 0.152 501Food Service & Entertainment 2,203 438,842 5.02 1.950 856Office 6,993 1,744,700 4.01 1.557 2,717Warehousing - Standard 445 355,878 1.25 0.486 173Warehousing - High Cube 2,527 11,993,284 0.21 0.082 982Manufacturing & Assembly 2,342 2,165,052 1.08 0.420 910Industrial - Other 331 323,748 1.02 0.397 129Institutional & Health Care 11,127 5,391,797 2.06 0.802 4,323Subtotal 30,296 28,995,799 1.04 11,770

Hotel/Motel Rooms 250 268 0.93 0.363 97

Grand Total 30,546 39,016

Number of Number of Residents per EDUS perResidential Property Residents [1] Residential Units [1] Residential Unit Residential Unit Total Future EDUs

Single Family 15,089 4,677 3.23 1.000 4,677Multi-Family 5,029 1,703 2.95 0.915 1,559Transient Oriented Development 15,676 7,838 2.00 0.620 4,859Subtotal 35,794 14,218 2.52 11,095

Number of Number of Non-Residential SF Employees per EDUs perNon-Residential Property Employees [1] / Rooms [1] 1,000 Non-Res. SF / Room 1,000 Non-Res. SF / Room Total Future EDUs

Retail 1,494 1,613,362 0.93 0.287 463Commercial 634 1,622,735 0.39 0.121 197Food Service & Entertainment 1,083 215,736 5.02 1.556 336Office 3,439 858,004 4.01 1.242 1,066Warehousing - Standard 65 52,001 1.25 0.388 20Warehousing - High Cube 1,284 6,093,809 0.21 0.065 398Manufacturing & Assembly 1,206 1,114,568 1.08 0.335 374Industrial - Other 37 36,256 1.02 0.317 11Institutional & Health Care 5,473 2,652,045 2.06 0.640 1,696Subtotal 14,715 14,258,516 1.03 4,561

Hotel/Motel Rooms 123 132 0.93 0.289 38


Number of Number of Residents perResidential Property Residents Residential Units Residential Unit Total Future EDUs

Single Family 65,404 24,224 2.70 24,224Multi-Family 24,596 9,109 2.70 9,160Transient Oriented Development 15,676 7,838 2.00 4,859Subtotal 105,676 41,171 2.57 38,243

Number of Number of Non-Residential SF Employees perNon-Residential Property Employees / Rooms [1] 1,000 Non-Res. SF / Room Total Future EDUs

Retail 4,532 4,894,080 0.93 1,643Commercial 1,924 4,924,515 0.39 698Food Service & Entertainment 3,286 654,578 5.02 1,192Office 10,432 2,602,704 4.01 3,783Warehousing - Standard 510 407,879 1.25 193Warehousing - High Cube 3,811 18,087,093 0.21 1,380Manufacturing & Assembly 3,548 3,279,620 1.08 1,284Industrial - Other 368 360,004 1.02 140Institutional & Health Care 16,600 8,043,842 2.06 6,019Subtotal 45,011 43,254,315 1.04 16,331

Hotel/Motel Rooms 373 399 0.93 135


[1] Data provided by City 8/27/16.[2] Based on same ratio of existing 2015 building sq. ft. per employee.

Total Development (2035)

Existing Development (2015)

Future Development (2015 - 2035)

See Separate Attachment

APPENDIX B

Fee Models

POLICE FEE MODEL

1/9/2017

Table 1Inventory of Existing FacilitiesFacility Facility Unit Units

Existing Police Vehicles & EquipmentMarked Police Units Vehicles 48Motorcycles Vehicles 7Off-Road Vehicles Vehicles 5Unmarked Units Vehicles 25Undercover/Cold Units Vehicles 9Crime Scene/Evidence Vehicles Vehicles 2Evidence/Building Maintenance Vehicles 2CSO/Pkg Control/CVP/Explorer/CVP Vehicles Vehicles 15Custody/Transport Vehicles 2Animal Control Trucks Vehicles 3Mobile Command Center Vehicles 1Cessna 172 Airplane Airplane 1DUI Trailer (2-axle) Vehicles 2DUI Trailer (3-axle) Vehicles 1Radar Trailers Vehicles 2VMS Trailer Vehicles 1Segways Vehicles 7Park Ranger Golf Cart Vehicles 1MRAP Vehicles 1Total Vehicles 135

Table 2Proposed Facilities

FacilityFacility Facility Unit Number CostFuture Police VehiclesMarked Police Units Vehicles 12 $327,191Unmarked Units Vehicles 3 $69,042Undercover/Cold Units Vehicles 1 $25,000Radar Trailers Vehicles 2 $26,000Park Ranger Golf Cart Vehicles 2 $16,000Total Vehicles 20 $463,233

Total Facilities Cost $463,233

Table 3Allocation of Facilities to Existing and New Development

Vehicles - All new vehicles allocated to new developmentTotal Vehicles/ Vehicles

Type of Development EDUs in 2035 per 1,000 EDUs Total CostExisting Development 39,016 135 3.460 $0Future Development 15,694 20 1.274 $463,233Total 54,709 155 2.833 $463,233

Table 4Proposed Facilities and Cost Per EDU

Number of CostFacility Cost Future EDUs Per EDUVehicles $463,233 15,694 $29.52Total $463,233 NA $29.52

Table 5Development Impact Fee per Unit or 1,000 SF

EDUs per EDUs per Units / Fees per Fees per Cost FinancedLand Use Type Unit [2] 1,000 SF / Room [2] 1,000 SF / Room Unit 1,000 SF / Room by DIFResidential PropertySingle Family 1.000 NA 4,677 $29.52 NA $138,050Multi-Family 0.915 NA 1,703 $27.02 NA $46,011Transient Oriented Development 0.620 NA 7,838 $18.30 NA $143,421

Non-Residential PropertyRetail NA 0.287 1,613 NA $8.47 $13,669Commercial NA 0.121 1,623 NA $3.57 $5,801Food Service & Entertainment NA 1.556 216 NA $45.93 $9,908Office NA 1.242 858 NA $36.67 $31,464Warehousing - Standard NA 0.388 52 NA $11.44 $595Warehousing - High Cube NA 0.065 6,094 NA $1.93 $11,747Manufacturing & Assembly NA 0.335 1,115 NA $9.90 $11,031Industrial - Other NA 0.317 36 NA $9.35 $339Institutional & Health Care NA 0.640 2,652 NA $18.88 $50,073Hotel/Motel Rooms NA 0.289 132 NA $8.54 $1,125Total $463,233Cost Allocated to Existing Development $0Total Cost of Police Facilities $463,233

City of RedlandsPolice FacilitiesFee Calculation

FIRE FEE MODEL

12/30/2016

Table 1Inventory of Existing FacilitiesFacility Facility Unit UnitsFire Station 261 SF 14,256Fire Station 262 SF 3,600Fire Station 263 SF 5,600Fire Station 264 Temporary TemporaryTotal Fire Stations 23,456

Existing Primary Fire VehiclesType 1 Engine E-261 Vehicles 1Type 1 Engine E-262 Vehicles 1Type 1 Engine E-263 Vehicles 1Type 1 Engine E-264 Vehicles 1Aerial Ladder T-261 Vehicles 1Type 3 Engine BE-261 Vehicles 1Type 3 Engine BE-262 Vehicles 1Type 3 Engine BE-264 Vehicles 1Water Tender WT-263 Vehicles 1Squad MS-261 Vehicles 1Squad MS-261R Vehicles 1Command C-700 Vehicles 1Command BC-704 Vehicles 1Command BC-705 Vehicles 1Command BC-706 Vehicles 1Command BC-707 Vehicles 1Total 16

Existing Support Staff Vehicles & EquipmentStaff Vehicle P-751 Vehicles 1Staff Vehicle 903 Vehicles 1Utility Vehicle UT-261 Vehicles 1Incident Suppt IS-263 Vehicles 1Safety Trailer 951 Vehicles 1Rescue Trailer 952 Vehicles 1Lt Support Trailer 953 Vehicles 1Repair Vehicle 925 Vehicles 1Total 8

Existing Secondary UnitsType 1 Engine E-261R Vehicles 1Type 1 Engine E-263R Vehicles 1Aerial Ladder T-261R Vehicles 1Total 3


Facility FacilityFacility Facility Unit Number Cost (2013) Cost (2016)Future Fire FacilitiesFire Admin Space SF 7,000 $3,318,000 $3,591,817Fire Station 264 Replacement SF 8,500 $3,535,980 $3,827,786NE Fire Station SF 8,500 $3,535,980 $3,827,786NW Fire Station SF 8,500 $3,535,980 $3,827,786Total 32,500 $13,925,940 $15,075,175

Future Support Staff VehiclesStaff Vehicle P-752 Vehicles 1 $18,000 $19,485Staff Vehicle Staff Cpt Vehicles 1 $18,750 $20,297Staff Vehicle - Arson Vehicles 1 $19,500 $21,109Total Vehicles 3 $56,250 $60,892

Future Secondary UnitsType 1 Engine (2) Vehicles 1 $1,268,000 $1,372,641

Total Facilities Cost $16,508,708


Stations - Based on Total EDUs - Credit given to existing developmentPercentage of Total SF Percentage of

Type of Development EDUs Total EDUs in 2035 SF Credit Allocated SF Costs Allocated Total CostExisting Development 39,016 71.31% 39,905 (23,456) 16,449 50.61% $7,629,681Future Development 15,694 28.69% 16,051 0 16,051 49.39% $7,445,494Total 54,709 100.00% 55,956 (23,456) 32,500 100.00% $15,075,175

Support Staff Vehicles - All new vehicles allocated to new developmentTotal Support Support

Percentage of Staff Vehicles Staff VehiclesType of Development EDUs Total EDUs in 2035 per 1,000 EDUs Total CostExisting Development 39,016 71.31% 8 0.205 $0Future Development 15,694 28.69% 3 0.191 $60,892Total 54,709 100.00% 11 0.201 $60,892

Future Secondary Unit Vehicles - All new vehicles allocated to new developmentTotal Future Future Secondary

Percentage of Secondary Unit Unit VehiclesType of Development EDUs Total EDUs Vehicles in 2035 per 1,000 EDUs Total CostExisting Development 39,016 71.31% 3 0.077 $0Future Development 15,694 28.69% 1 0.064 $1,372,641Total 54,709 100.00% 4 0.073 $1,372,641


Number of CostFacility Cost Future EDUs Per EDUStations $7,445,494 15,694 $474.42Vehicles $1,433,533 15,694 $91.34Total $8,879,027 NA $565.76


EDUs per EDUs per Units / Fees per Fees per Cost FinancedLand Use Type Unit [2] 1,000 SF / Room [2] 1,000 SF / Room Unit 1,000 SF / Room by DIFResidential PropertySingle Family 1.000 NA 4,677 $565.76 NA $2,646,081Multi-Family 0.915 NA 1,703 $517.86 NA $881,910Transient Oriented Development 0.620 NA 7,838 $350.73 NA $2,749,020

Non-Residential PropertyRetail NA 0.287 1,613 NA $162.39 $261,995Commercial NA 0.121 1,623 NA $68.51 $111,181Food Service & Entertainment NA 1.556 216 NA $880.34 $189,920Office NA 1.242 858 NA $702.89 $603,080Warehousing - Standard NA 0.388 52 NA $219.28 $11,403Warehousing - High Cube NA 0.065 6,094 NA $36.95 $225,164Manufacturing & Assembly NA 0.335 1,115 NA $189.70 $211,431Industrial - Other NA 0.317 36 NA $179.29 $6,500Institutional & Health Care NA 0.640 2,652 NA $361.90 $959,772Hotel/Motel Rooms NA 0.289 132 NA $163.77 $21,570Total $8,879,027Cost Allocated to Existing Development $7,629,681Total Cost of Fire Facilities $16,508,708

City of RedlandsFire Facilities

Fee Calculation

PARKS FEE MODEL

12/30/2016

Table 1Inventory of Existing FacilitiesFacility Facility Unit UnitsExisting Parks Brookside Park Acres 9.2 Caroline Park Acres 16.8 Community Park Acres 18.2 Crafton Park Acres 7.5 Ed Hales Park Acres 0.3 Ford Park Acres 27.0 Franklin Park Acres 0.6 Jennie Davis Park Acres 5.2 Prospect Park Acres 11.4 Simonds Parkway Acres 0.9 Smiley Park Acres 9.2 Sylvan Park Acres 23.3 Texonia Park Acres 8.8 The Terrace Acres 2.5 Isreal Beal Park Acres 8.1 Oakmont Park Acres 14.6 Redlands Sports Park Acres 48.0 Heritage Park Acres 18.7 Orange Street Alley Acres 0.1Total Park Facilities 230.3

Orange Blossam Trail Park Phases 1, 2, & 3 Acres 4.48 [1]

Existing Community Center BuildingsRedlands Community Center Square Feet 22,900Redlands Community Senior Center Square Feet 7,500Joslyn Senior Center Square Feet 8,925Redlands Bowl Square Feet 3,046Mission Gables Square Feet 5,014Total Buildings 47,385

Table 2Existing Standards

Standard perExisting Units Existing Residents 1,000 Residents

Existing Parks Acres 230.3 69,882 3.30Exising Parks Community Buildings Sq. Ft. 47,385 69,882 678.07


FacilityFacility Facility Unit Number Cost per Acre or Sq. Ft. [2] CostFuture Park FacilitiesPark Acres Acres 118.0 $351,821 per Acre $41,508,350

Park Community Center Buildings Square Feet 24,271 $309 per Sq. Ft. $7,488,046

Additional ProjectsOrange Blossom Trail Phase 4 Acres 4.61 [2] $200,000 per Acre $921,212Zanja Trail Acres 5.00 $200,000 per Acre $1,000,000Other Trail Facilities Acres 5.00 $200,000 per Acre $1,000,000Subtotal 14.61 $2,921,212



Future Park Acres - Based on Total EDUs - Credit given to existing developmentResidential Percentage of Total Acres Percentage of

Type of Development EDUs Total EDUs in 2035 Acres Credit Allocated Acres Costs Allocated Total CostExisting Development 27,149 70.99% 247.3 (230.3) 16.9 14.35% $5,956,471Future Development 11,095 29.01% 101.1 0.0 101.1 85.65% $35,551,879Total 38,243 100.00% 348.3 (230.3) 118.0 100.00% $41,508,350

Future Park Buildings - Based on Total EDUs - Credit given to existing developmentResidential Percentage of Total Sq. Ft. Percentage of

Type of Development EDUs Total EDUs in 2035 Sq. Ft. Credit Allocated SF Costs Allocated Total CostExisting Development 27,149 70.99% 50,868 (47,385) 3,483 14.35% $1,074,539Future Development 11,095 29.01% 20,788 0 20,788 85.65% $6,413,507Total 38,243 100.00% 71,656 (47,385) 24,271 100.00% $7,488,046

Future Park Trails - Based on Total EDUs - Credit given to existing developmentResidential Percentage of Total Acres Percentage of

Type of Development EDUs Total EDUs in 2035 Acres Credit Allocated Acres Costs Allocated Total CostExisting Development 27,149 70.99% 13.6 (4.5) 9.1 62.08% $1,813,524Future Development 11,095 29.01% 5.5 0.0 5.5 37.92% $1,107,688Total 38,243 100.00% 19.1 (4.5) 14.6 100.00% $2,921,212


Number of CostFacility Cost Future EDUs Per EDUPark Acres $35,551,879 11,095 $3,204.39Park Buildings $6,413,507 11,095 $578.07Park Trails $1,107,688 11,095 $99.84Total $43,073,074 NA $3,882.30


EDUs per EDUs per Units / Fees per Cost FinancedLand Use Type Unit 1,000 SF 1,000 SF Unit by DIFResidential PropertySingle Family 1.000 NA 4,677 $3,882.30 $18,157,502Multi-Family 0.915 NA 1,703 $3,553.55 $6,051,698Transient Oriented Development 0.620 NA 7,838 $2,406.72 $18,863,874

Non-Residential Property NA NA NA NA $0Total $43,073,074Cost Allocated to Existing Development $8,844,534Total Cost of Park Facilities $51,917,608

[1] Based on trail length of 3.7 miles and standard width of 10 ft per US Dept. of Transportation.

[2] Based on trail length of 3.8 miles and standard width of 10 ft per US Dept. of Transportation.

[3] Based on cost information from prior fee study escalated by ENR to 2016.

City of RedlandsParks FacilitiesFee Calculation

LIBRARY FEE MODEL

1/3/2017

Table 1Inventory of Existing FacilitiesFacility Facility Unit UnitsExisting LibrariesA. K. Smiley Library Building Square Feet 43,876Lincoln Memorial Shrine Square Feet 3,650Total Library Facilities 47,526

Existing Library MaterialsBooks Books 133,174Non-Book Items Units 581,509Total 714,683


FacilityFacility Facility Unit Number CostFuture Library MaterialsBooks Books 2,660 $93,100Non-Book Items Units 116,000 $27,320Subtotal $120,420

Remodel/Refurbish Existing Library Facilities Square Feet NA $9,505,000



Future Books - All Future Books allocated to New DevelopmentResidential Total Books Books

Type of Development EDUs in 2035 per EDU Total CostExisting Development 27,149 133,174 4.905 $0Future Development 11,095 2,660 0.240 $93,100Total 38,243 135,834 3.552 $93,100

Future Non-Book Items - All Non-Book Items allocated to New DevelopmentResidential Total Items Non-Book Items

Type of Development EDUs in 2035 per EDU Total CostExisting Development 27,149 581,509 21.419 $0Future Development 11,095 116,000 10.455 $27,320Total 38,243 697,509 18.239 $27,320

Remodel/Refurbish Existing Facilities - Based on Total EDUsResidential Percentage of Total Sq. Ft.

Type of Development EDUs Total EDUs in 2035 Total CostExisting Development 27,149 70.99% 33,738 $6,747,516Future Development 11,095 29.01% 13,788 $2,757,484Total 38,243 100.00% 47,526 $9,505,000


Number of CostFacility Cost Future EDUs Per EDUBooks $93,100 11,095 $8.39Non-Book Items $27,320 11,095 $2.46Remodel/Refurbish Existing Buildings $2,757,484 11,095 $248.54Total $2,877,904 NA $259.39


EDUs per EDUs per Units / Fees per Cost FinancedLand Use Type Unit [2] 1,000 SF [2] 1,000 SF Unit / 1,000 SF / Room by DIFResidential PropertySingle Family 1.000 NA 4,677 $259.39 $1,213,184Multi-Family 0.915 NA 1,703 $237.43 $404,341Transient Oriented Development 0.620 NA 7,838 $160.80 $1,260,380

Non-Residential Property NA NA NA NA $0Total $2,877,904Cost Allocated to Existing Development $6,747,516Total Cost of Library Facilities $9,625,420

City of RedlandsLibrary FacilitiesFee Calculation

GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES FEE MODEL

1/9/2017

Table 1Inventory of Existing FacilitiesFacility Facility Unit Units

Switch and Firewall Equipment Units 72Servers and Appliances Units 65Computers Units 840Laptops Units 94Total 1,071

City Hall (to be replaced with future Govt. Center) SF 47,500

Police Dept. Facilities (to be replaced with future Govt. Center/Safety Hall) SF 23,838

Table 2Existing Standards

Existing Units Existing Residential EDUs Standard per EDUSwitch and Firewall Equipment 72 39,016 0.00185Servers and Appliances 65 39,016 0.00167Computers 840 39,016 0.02153Laptops 94 39,016 0.00241

1,071 39,016 0.02745


FacilityFacility Facility Unit Number CostIT HardwareSwitch and Firewall Equipment Units 29 $380,366Servers and Appliances Units 26 $625,803Computers Units 338 $506,099Laptops Units 38 $421,417Subtotal 431 $1,933,685

Government Center/Safety Hall Square Feet 276,000 $27,343,805 [1]

Downtown Parking Facility NA NA $2,734,381

Total Facilities Costs $32,011,871


Future IT Hardware - Based on Total EDUs - Credit given to existing developmentPercentage of Total Hardware Percentage of

Type of Development EDUs Total EDUs in 2035 Unit Credit Allocated Units Costs Allocated Total CostExisting Development 39,016 71.31% 1,071 (1,071) 0 0.00% $0Future Development 15,694 28.69% 431 0 431 100.00% $1,933,685Total 54,709 100.00% 1,502 (1,071) 431 100.00% $1,933,685

Future Government Center/Safety Hall - Based on Total EDUsCost

Type of Development EDUs Total Cost per EDUExisting Development 39,016 $19,500,000 $499.80Future Development 15,694 $7,843,805 $499.80Total 54,709 $27,343,805 NA

Future Downtown Parking Facility - Based on Total EDUsCost

Type of Development EDUs Total Cost per EDUExisting Development 39,016 $1,950,000 $49.98Future Development 15,694 $784,381 $49.98Total 54,709 $2,734,381 NA


Number of CostFacility Cost Future EDUs Per EDUIT Hardware Items $1,933,685 15,694 $123.21Future Government Center/Safety Hall $7,843,805 15,694 $499.80Future Downtown Parking Facilities $784,381 15,694 $49.98Total $10,561,871 NA $672.99


EDUs per EDUs per Units / Fees per Fees per Cost FinancedLand Use Type Unit [2] 1,000 SF / Room [2] 1,000 SF / Room Unit 1,000 SF / Room by DIFResidential PropertySingle Family 1.000 NA 4,677 $672.99 NA $3,147,593Multi-Family 0.915 NA 1,703 $616.01 NA $1,049,059Transient Oriented Development 0.620 NA 7,838 $417.20 NA $3,270,042

Non-Residential PropertyRetail NA 0.287 1,613 NA $193.17 $311,651Commercial NA 0.121 1,623 NA $81.50 $132,254Food Service & Entertainment NA 1.556 216 NA $1,047.19 $225,916Office NA 1.242 858 NA $836.11 $717,382Warehousing - Standard NA 0.388 52 NA $260.84 $13,564Warehousing - High Cube NA 0.065 6,094 NA $43.95 $267,839Manufacturing & Assembly NA 0.335 1,115 NA $225.65 $251,503Industrial - Other NA 0.317 36 NA $213.27 $7,732Institutional & Health Care NA 0.640 2,652 NA $430.49 $1,141,678Hotel/Motel Rooms NA 0.289 132 NA $194.80 $25,658Total $10,561,871Cost Allocated to Existing Development $21,450,000Total Cost of Government Facilities $32,011,871

[1] Total cost is equal to $60,000,000. Of this amount $32,656,195 will be funded from other non-DIF sources.

City of RedlandsGovernment Facilities

Fee Calculation

TRANSPORTATION FEE MODEL

gross square feet/hotel room= 1,012

residentialdensity

(persons/du)single family 3multi-family 2.3

transit oriented 1.65

Land Use Amount unitsAverage

Daily Tripsper unit/KSF

ADTsTotal Cost of

TranspProjects

Cost Allocatedto New

Development

Total NewADTs Cost per ADT

Residential: $307,673,057 40,879,654$ 278,189 146.95$Single Family 19,547 Dwelling Units 10.09 197,229Multi-Family 7,406 Dwelling Units 6.99 51,797Transit Oriented Development 0 Dwelling Units 7.17 0

Non Residential:Retail Trade 3,280,718 Square Feet 22.94 75,254Commercial 3,301,780 Square Feet 22.22 73,379Food Service/Entertainment 438,842 Square Feet 46.55 20,430Office 1,744,700 Square Feet 13.40 23,372Hotel/Motel 268 Rooms 7.00 1,874Warehousing-Standard 355,878 Square Feet 4.73 1,684Warehousing- High Cube 11,993,284 Square Feet 1.75 21,013Manufacturing and Assembly 2,165,052 Square Feet 2.59 5,611Industrial-Other 323,748 Square Feet 8.48 2,746Institutional and Health Care 5,391,797 Square Feet 20.08 108,246

Total 582,63667.68%

Land Use ExistingAmount (units) Existing SF Existing

Employees

current sfper

employee

expectedemployees in

2035

expected squarefeet in 2035

expectedrooms in

2035Residential:

Single Family 24,224 Dwelling UnitsMulti-Family 9,109 Dwelling UnitsTransit Oriented Development 7,838 Dwelling Units

Non Residential:Retail Trade square feet 3,280,718 3,038 1,080 4,532 4,894,080Commercial square feet 3,301,780 1,290 2,560 1924 4,924,515Food Service/Entertainment square feet 438,842 2,203 199 3286 654,578Office square feet 1,744,700 6,993 249 10432 2,602,704Hotel/Motel 268 Rooms 270,918 250 1,084 373 399Warehousing-Standard square feet 355,878 445 800 510 407,879Warehousing- High Cube square feet 11,993,284 2,527 4,746 3811 18,087,093Manufacturing and Assembly square feet 2,165,052 2,342 924 3548 3,279,620Industrial-Other square feet 323,748 331 978 368 360,004Institutional and Health Care square feet 5,391,797 11,127 485 16600 8,043,842

Land Use Units/KSF unitsAverage

Daily Tripsper unit/KSF

ADTs

Residential:Single Family 4,677 Dwelling Units 10.09 47,191Multi-Family 1,703 Dwelling Units 6.99 11,911Transit Oriented Development 7,838 Dwelling Units 7.17 56,195

Non Residential:Retail Trade 1,613,362 Square Feet 22.94 37,008Commercial 1,622,735 Square Feet 22.22 36,064Food Service/Entertainment 215,736 Square Feet 46.55 10,043Office 858,004 Square Feet 13.40 11,494Hotel/Motel 132 Rooms 7.00 922Warehousing-Standard 52,001 Square Feet 4.73 246Warehousing- High Cube 6,093,809 Square Feet 1.75 10,677Manufacturing and Assembly 1,114,568 Square Feet 2.59 2,889Industrial-Other 36,256 Square Feet 8.48 307Institutional and Health Care 2,652,045 Square Feet 20.08 53,243

278,189total 860,825

% of total 32.32%

Existing ADTs

Future (Growth) ADTs

Expected Development in 2035

Cost Per ADT

City of RedlandsDevelopmentImpact Fee Study

Transportation

version: r1date: 9/15/2016

Land Use City/SANBAGDesignation

2016 City UsesITE Designation1

ITECode

ITEAve.Trip Rate2

%reductionfor pass-by trips

AverageTrip

Length

TripLengthFactor

AverageDaily Trip

Rate4

Residential Single Family Single Family 9.94 7.4 1.02 10.09(dwelling units) Multi-Family Apartment 6.89 7.4 1.02 6.99

Mobil Home Transit Oriented Development3 7.06 7.4 1.02 7.17

Commercial/ Retail Commercial Commercial 820 42.94 30% 5.39 0.74 22.22(1,000 s.f.) Retail Trade (Specialty Retail) 814 44.32 30% 5.39 0.74 22.94

Food Service and Entertainment 931 89.95 30% 5.39 0.74 46.55(Quality Restaurant)

Industrial Industrial Warehousing Standard 150 3.89 8.87 1.22 4.73(1,000 s.f.) Warehousing High Cube 152 1.44 8.87 1.22 1.75

Manufacturing and Assembly 140 2.13 8.87 1.22 2.59Industrial Other 110 6.97 8.87 1.22 8.48 (General Light IndustrialInstitutional and Health Care 610 16.5 8.87 1.22 20.08 (Hospital)

Office Office General Office Building 710 11.01 8.87 1.22 13.40(1,000 s.f.)Hotel/Motel Hotel/ Motel Hotel 310 8.92(room) Motel 320 9.11

Hotel/Motel 9.02 5.66 0.78 7.00

1. ITE categories were chosen that best fit the intent and purpose of the City sub categories2. The land use designations for non residential uses in this Study differ completely from the 203 DIF. Therefore, ITE rates are used that most closely fit the descriptions for the new categories3. This study assumes an ADT rate of 4.00 until better information is available. A rate of 4.00 is less than other high desity residential, and isreasonable4. Numbers in this column (bold italic) are used in this study for calculating ADTs and Fee Schedule

Trip Generation RatesAverage Daily Trip Ends - City Wide

Jan 2016 ENR Index 5823.91Jan 2014 ENR Index 5570.08

ENR cost escalator to 2016= 1.0456

Location

SANBAG 2013Estimated

ConstructionCost

ENR CostEscalation

Factor to 2016

2016 EstimatedCost

SANBAG %Allocation to

NewDevelopment

SANBAGAllocation to

NewDevelopment

Redlands %Allcoation

Redlands $Allocation to

NewDevelopment

Location/ Type of Project Limits

SANBAG2013


Cost


2016

2016Estimated

ConstructionCost

% Allocationto New

Development

Cost Allocationto New

Development

Interchange Improvements: ArterialsI-10 at Mountain View 50,895,000$ 1.0456 53,214,298$ 37.80% 20,115,005$ 3.90% 784,485$ Alabama St N city limit to Palmetto 10,653,000$ 1.0456 11,138,460$ 23.10% 2,572,984$I-10 at California 44,533,000$ 1.0456 46,562,380$ 47.80% 22,256,818$ 14.60% 3,249,495$ California St Redlands Blvd. to I-10 777,000$ 1.0456 812,408$ 23.10% 187,666$!-10 at Alabama 41,600,000$ 1.0456 43,495,723$ 50.50% 21,965,340$ 34.90% 7,665,904$ California St Lugonia to San Bernardino Av 943,000$ 1.0456 985,973$ 23.10% 227,760$I-10 at University 5,200,000$ 1.0456 5,436,965$ 17.90% 973,217$ 100.00% 973,217$ Citus Ave Auburn ot Wabash 777,000$ 1.0456 812,408$ 23.10% 187,666$I-10 at Wabash 40,000,000$ 1.0456 41,822,810$ 35.80% 14,972,566$ 12.50% 1,871,571$ Citus Ave Dearborn to Wabash 1,184,000$ 1.0456 1,237,955$ 23.10% 285,968$I-10 at Live Oak 18,630,000$ 1.0456 19,478,974$ 37.00% 7,207,220$ 1.00% 72,072$ Cypress Ave I-10 to Citrus 638,000$ 1.0456 667,074$ 23.10% 154,094$I-210 at 5th Street 8,000,000$ 1.0456 8,364,562$ 44.10% 3,688,772$ 1.40% 51,643$ Ford Ave 5th to I-10 2,058,000$ 1.0456 2,151,784$ 23.10% 497,062$

218,375,714$ 91,178,938$ 14,668,387$ Live Oak Cyn Rd San Tim Cyn to E city limits 6,004,000$ 1.0456 6,277,604$ 23.10% 1,450,126$Lugonia Ave Orange to Wabash 7,398,000$ 1.0456 7,735,129$ 23.10% 1,786,815$Lugonia Ave Tennesse to Orange 3,456,000$ 1.0456 3,613,491$ 23.10% 834,716$Mountain View Ave Lugonia to San Bernardino Av 516,000$ 1.0456 539,514$ 23.10% 124,628$Orange St lugonia to I10 2,960,000$ 1.0456 3,094,888$ 23.10% 714,919$Orange St N city limit to Pioneer 9,346,000$ 1.0456 9,771,900$ 23.10% 2,257,309$Orange St San Bernardino to Lugonia 1,304,000$ 1.0456 1,363,424$ 23.10% 314,951$Orange St San Bernardino to Pioneer 707,000$ 1.0456 739,218$ 23.10% 170,759$Redlands Blvd Alabama/Colton Intersection 5,763,000$ 1.0456 6,025,621$ 23.10% 1,391,919$San Bernardion Ave SR 210 to Orange 1,972,000$ 1.0456 2,061,865$ 23.10% 476,291$San Bernardion Ave Church to Wábash 2,744,000$ 1.0456 2,869,045$ 23.10% 662,749$SR 38 (Orange/Lugonia) w city limit to e city limit 7,990,000$ 1.0456 8,354,106$ 23.10% 1,929,799$Wabash Ave. 5th to I-10 4,412,000$ 1.0456 4,613,056$ 23.10% 1,065,616$Traffic Signal Pioneer/Orange 232,000$ 1.0456 242,572$ 23.10% 56,034$Traffic Signal Wabash/5th 232,000$ 1.0456 242,572$ 23.10% 56,034$Traffic Signal Wabash/I-10 232,000$ 1.0456 242,572$ 23.10% 56,034$Traffic Signal Ford/I-10 232,000$ 1.0456 242,572$ 23.10% 56,034$Traffic Signal Dearborn/Citrus 232,000$ 1.0456 242,572$ 23.10% 56,034$Traffic Signal Ford/I-10 WB 237,000$ 1.0456 247,800$ 23.10% 57,242$Traffic Signal 6th/I-10 EB onramp 232,000$ 1.0456 242,572$ 23.10% 56,034$Traffic Signal 6th/I-10 WB off ramp 232,000$ 1.0456 242,572$ 23.10% 56,034$Traffic Signal Wabsh/Citrus 242,000$ 1.0456 253,028$ 23.10% 58,449$

73,705,000$ 77,063,756$ 17,801,728$

Component Total ProjectCost

Cost Allocatedto New

DevelopmentLocation/ Type of Project Limits Estimated

Cost


2016

2016Estimated

ConstructionCost

% Allocationto New

Development


Development

Interchange Improvements 218,375,714$ 14,668,387$ Colton Ave widen to 4 lanes Texas to Orange 1,090,000$ 1.0456 1,139,672$ 100.00% 1,139,672$Railroad Grade Crossings 2,012,723$ 292,699$ Texas Ave Widen to 4 lanes Colton to Pennsylvania 1,970,000$ 1.0456 2,059,773$ 100.00% 2,059,773$Regional Arterials 73,705,000$ 17,801,728$ Intersection Improvements Orange/Pearl 500,000$ 1.0456 522,785$ 100.00% 522,785$Local Arterials 5,850,000$ 6,116,586$ Intersection Improvements Orange/Stuart 40,000$ 1.0456 41,823$ 100.00% 41,823$Local Signals 6,229,621$ 1,515,505$ Intersection Improvements Church/Colton 250,000$ 1.0456 261,393$ 100.00% 261,393$Local Streets 1,500,000$ 484,749$ Traffic Signal Orange/Oriental 225,000$ 1.0456 235,253$ 100.00% 235,253$

307,673,057$ 40,879,654$ Traffic Signal 6th/Colton 425,000$ 1.0456 444,367$ 100.00% 444,367$Traffic Signal 6th/Stuart 275,000$ 1.0456 287,532$ 100.00% 287,532$Traffic Signal 6th/Citrus 275,000$ 1.0456 287,532$ 100.00% 287,532$Traffic Signal Eureka/Colton 250,000$ 1.0456 261,393$ 100.00% 261,393$Traffic Signal Eureka/Stuart 275,000$ 1.0456 287,532$ 100.00% 287,532$Traffic Signal University/Colton 275,000$ 1.0456 287,532$ 100.00% 287,532$

5,850,000$ 6,116,586$ 6,116,586$

Location/ Type of Project Limits EstimatedCost


2016

2016Estimated

ConstructionCost

% Allocationto New

Development


Development

Texas St. Pioneer Ave. 350,000$ 1.0456 365,950$ 32.32% 118,262$University St. Brockton Ave. 300,000$ 1.0456 313,671$ 32.32% 101,368$Intelligent Traffic Mgmnt Sys varies 5,400,000$ NA 5,400,000$ 23.10% 1,247,400$Fire- Signal Preempt System varies 150,000$ NA 150,000$ 32.32% 48,475$

6,200,000$ 6,229,621$ 1,515,505$

Location/ Type of Project Limits EstimatedCost


2016

2016Estimated

ConstructionCost

% Allocationto New

Development


Development

Pioneer Ave. Furlow Drive to Texas St. 1,500,000$ NA 1,500,000$ 32.32% 484,749$

Location

SANBAG 2013Estimated

ConstructionCost

ENR CostEscalation

Factor to 2016

2016 EstimatedCost

SanBag %Allocation to

Redlands

SanBag CostAllocation to

Redlands

CostAllocation to

NewDevelopment

% Allocation toNew

Development

San Timoteo Canyon Road 1,925,000$ 1.046 2,012,723$ 45.00% 905,725$ 32.32% 292,699$

Railroad Grade Crossings

Transportation Cost Summary

INTERCHANGES

LOCAL STREET PROJECTS

REGIONAL ARTERIALS

LOCAL SIGNAL PROJECTS

LOCAL ARTERIALS

Facilities Needs ListTransportation

taussig - city of redlands · david taussig & associates, inc. public finance facilities...

Documents